Brasil: First reflections
The movement, which began as resistance to the hike in transport fares, was unprecedented and surprising.Whoever believes that he can immediately see all of the movement’s dimensions and future projections will most likely have a reductionist view of the phenomenon, forcing reality to defend previously developed definitions in order to confirm his arguments, without taking into account the multifaceted and surprising nature of the mobilizations.
We’re not going to attempt that in this article. We only want to draw some conclusions that seem to us clear.
1. The cancellation of the fare increase constitutes a victory by the movement and demonstrates the strength of the mobilizations, all the more so when they were based on a fair and possible vindication. It was for that reason that the mobilizations came to pass.
2. That victory, in the first place, concretely reinforces the opinion than popular mobilizations are worthwhile, sensitize the people, allow all of society to speak out, and serve as a strong element of pressure on the governments.
3. In addition, the movement brought into discussion an essential question in the struggle against neoliberalism: the polarization between public and private interests and the issue of who should fund the costs of an essential public service that, as such, should not be subservient to the interests of the private corporations, moved by profit.
4. The defeat of the fare increase translates into a benefit for the poorest layers of the population, which usually utilize public transportation, demonstrating that a movement must seek not only the vindications of each particular sector of society but also the broader demands, especially those that involve the neediest sectors of society and the people who have the most difficulty in moving about.
5. Perhaps the most essential aspect of the mobilizations was that they enabled wide sectors of young people to enter political life, sectors that had not been contemplated by the government’s policies and heretofore had not found specific ways to manifest themselves politically. This might be the most permanent consequence of the mobilizations.
6. It was also made clear that the leaders of different parties – more so on the right than on the left – have trouble relating to the popular mobilizations.
They make important decisions without consulting with anyone and when they face popular resistance tend to reaffirm their decisions technocratically – “there are no resources,” “the accounts don’t balance,” etc. – without realizing that the issue is political, involving a fair vindication of the citizenry, which relies on an immense social consensus. They should also realize that they must find political solutions, for which they themselves were elected.
Only after many mobilizations and the erosion of the leaders’ authority are the correct decisions made. It is one thing to say that one “dialogues” with the movements, it is another to deal effectively with the mobilizations, all the more so when the demonstrators resist the decisions made by the leaders.
7. Certainly, one problem that the movement faces is external manipulation. One such attempt is represented by the more extremist sectors, which seek to inject maximalist vindications of “popular uprising” against the State in order to justify their violent actions, characterized as vandalism.
These are very small sectors, from outside the movement, with or without police infiltration. They achieve the immediate publicity given by media coverage, but are rejected by almost all the movements.
8. The other attempt comes from the right and is clearly expressed in the attitude of the traditional media. Initially, they opposed the movement, as they habitually do with every popular manifestation. Afterward, when they realized that it might represent an erosion of the government, they promoted it and attempted to artificially insert their own guidelines against the federal government.
Those efforts were similarly rejected by the leaders of the movement, despite the fact that a reactionary component came to the fore with the typical rancor of right-wing extremism, magnified by the traditional media.
9. We should point out the surprise of the governments and their inability to understand the explosive potential of the urban living conditions, particularly the absence of federal policies affecting young people. The traditional student organizations also were surprised and were not present at the movements.
10. Two attitudes are noticeable in the course of the mobilizations: the complaint that they were being manipulated by the right – an issue clearly expressed by the action of the traditional media – and the temptation to oppose the movement.
The second is to exalt the movement without criticism, as if it embodied clear projects with a future.
Both are wrong. The movement emerged from fair demands and was promoted by youthful sectors with their own states of consciousness, notwithstanding the contradictions that a movement of this kind has.
The correct attitude is to learn from the movement and act alongside it, to help it achieve a clearer consciousness of its objectives and limitations, of the possibility that it might be used by the right, of the problems it raised and the way to generate a discussion of its meaning and find better ways to confront its challenges.
The greater meaning of the movement will be made clear with the passing of time. The right will only be interested in its narrow election concerns, in its desperate efforts to achieve a second round in the presidential election.
Extremist sectors will seek exaggerated interpretations in the sense that the conditions would be ripe to promote violent alternatives that will occur rapidly.
Most important are the lessons that the movement itself and the left – parties, popular movements, governments – can draw from the experience. No previous interpretation accounts for the complexity and unprecedented nature of the movement.
Probably the biggest consequence will be the introduction into the debate of the young people’s political meaning and their concrete living conditions and expectations in 21st-Century Brazil.
