Interview: Homophobia is central to generating political passion – 01/24/2023 – Politics

The idea of ​​democracy is in crisis. Causes? One of the main ones is the absence of social democracy, or in other words, the existence of inequalities and difficulties in accessing essential services.

According to this analysis by Luis Felipe Miguel, professor of political science at UnB (University of Brasilia), this has led to a conflagration in recent times around the world because democratic regimes have become less and less responsive to the demands of the population.

For him, people feel threatened because their greatest values ​​are being attacked.

“It’s a moral panic, which doesn’t lead to reflection. It is fueled by people’s most ingrained prejudices. Homophobia, for example, is a central element in mobilizing political passions.”

From the inability of governments to reduce inequalities, the social role of churches also grows. And the political power of some of its representatives. Shaking, thus, the concept of separation of religion and politics.

“The most serious thing is that this entry of religion perverts the public debate. In the second round, we saw a debate about fanciful things, such as Satanism and who is more Christian. of religion”, he evaluates.

Sectors that have an anti-systemic discourse, such as supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro, says the professor, “at the same time that they co-opt people, they kind of shield against reality”. “Why [esses indivíduos] are inserted in bubbles where people repeat the biggest absurdities and are not confronted.”

The UnB professor analyzes that the traditional right has an important share of responsibility in the current political moment. “He thought that putting the extreme right in the street would be useful to overthrow President Dilma”, he says. “But what happened was that the traditional right was annihilated in Brazil in the last elections”.

In the book “Democracy in the Capitalist Periphery: Impasses in Brazil”, you analyze democracy. What is the relationship between the democratic crisis and the current situation in Brazil? The model of political organization that we call democracy was built in the countries of Europe. In a long process of compromise between the elites and the majority of the population.

It was a system that allowed the majority to be heard in some way in the decision-making process, that is, it mitigated social domination.

But this has been going into crisis lately around the world, because democratic regimes have become less and less responsive to the demands of the population.

People became disenchanted with this model. Democracy lost vitality, that is, popular demands no longer find echo in government decisions. It was in this space that politicians with an anti-systemic discourse —Bolsonaro is the greatest example in Brazil— managed to succeed.

We see in Brazil a very radical example of a process that happens in other countries of the world, as in the United States with Trump, in Hungary and in Poland. Now, Italy has a government that is as radical as Brazil’s. This is a widespread phenomenon.

Does social inequality harm or diminish interest in democracy? Undoubtedly, because what is at the heart of democracy is the idea of ​​equality. When we realize that inequalities are not addressed, it seems that it is not working.

After the 1988 Constitution, initiatives to improve inequalities were implemented, but groups began to hinder advances in Brazil. The best example of this is the spending ceiling, a constitutional amendment that prohibits the Brazilian State from adopting measures to combat inequalities.

We vote, but there are certain things that mess with the structure of inequality that are already prohibited in advance. It disenchants people. Then someone arrived with a speech of ‘I am against everything and everyone’ and that created a seduction.

So are we in a feedback loop? How to leave? This is not easy, because there are still other factors.

Sectors that have an anti-systemic discourse, at the same time that they co-opt people, they kind of shield themselves against reality. Why [os indivíduos] they are inserted in bubbles where people repeat the biggest absurdities and are not confronted.

What we see in Brazil today is the effect of that. That is to say, the capture of a significant part of the population through political mystification. No one penetrates that. There is no contrast with reality, no criterion of truth.

Is this why religion has the greatest power in the political system? Is religion meeting social demands? Yes. In fact, we also have a setback from this point of view.

The combination of religion and politics leads to the intensification of political conflicts. Because religious values ​​are at the service of people as untouchables, while politics always requires room for negotiation. This combination will be mobilized because it is useful for political agents.

In the poorest communities in Brazil, but not only, churches appear as those spaces that give hope to people who are not finding it in public services.

The most serious thing is that this entry of religion perverts public debate. We saw in this second round a debate about fanciful things, like Satanism and who is more Christian. The central issues in terms of the country’s project have no space because there is this political use of religion.

People feel threatened because their highest values ​​are being attacked. It is a moral panic, which does not lead to reflection. It is fueled by people’s most deeply held prejudices. Homophobia, for example, is a central element in mobilizing political passions.

This shows, in my view, that in these years of democracy we only scratched the surface of the prejudices and resentments present in Brazilian society.

The fake news that are released refer to the same points. One day it’s the gay kit in schools, another day the dick bottle, another day the unisex bathroom. We are seeing a deliberate mobilization of the homophobia that is present in the mentality of a large part of the Brazilian population mixed with religious discourse.

Is it difficult for people to understand this discussion about democracy in elections? To begin with, there is a difficulty in understanding how democracy works. We have the vote and the most voted rule on behalf of the majority. This is democracy, but it is only one aspect of it.

People need to be able to think with their own heads and formulate their political preferences in democracy. Therefore, we need a free and plural debate.

It is necessary to have mechanisms that prevent the abuse of power by those who were elected. Therefore, we have liberal institutions, division of powers and mutual controls.

What do we see in government? [Bolsonaro] it’s an attack on all of that. There is an attack against the separation of powers and an attempt to bend the legislature through corruption.

The freedom of dissent, that is, to oppose, has been threatened by a government that encourages supporters to political violence.

What factors contributed to the rise of the new Brazilian extreme right? There is an international element that has to do with frustrations with liberal democracy. A part of the population is resentful of the advances, albeit insufficient, of anti-racist and feminist struggles and so on. It is no wonder that the main base of this extreme right is made up of white men.

In the Brazilian case, there is something that is very important and cannot be left out. The traditional right thought that putting the extreme right on the street would be useful to overthrow President Dilma [em 2016]. The idea was that later these people would be collected and the usual conservatives would keep the prize, but what happened was that the traditional right was annihilated in Brazil in the last elections.

In the conclusion of the book “Democracy in the Capitalist Periphery: Impasses in Brazil”, you talk about possible scenarios for Brazil after the elections. Which ones are they? Lula will face a series of challenges. But I want to focus on two main issues.

One is how to deal with the strength of the far right. I think that the stability of the new government and the possibility of an effective democratic reconstruction depend on holding Bolsonaro and those close to him accountable for the many crimes committed. It is not admissible to leave unpunished the explicit coup, the electoral corruption, the institutional banditry of the Highway Police.

The second issue is Lula’s relationship with his many conservative allies. There is strong pressure so that, by re-establishing the facade of democratic rules, the government remains impervious to popular demands.

But if Lula is not capable of responding to the urgencies of the poorest and of granting workers a voice in public debate again, he will have failed in the mission that he has always attributed to himself as a political leader.

It is a narrow path, between, on the one hand, the regrouping of the forces that staged the 2016 coup, to prevent Lula from governing with or without impeachment, and, on the other, a normalization of social setbacks that represents the betrayal of the promises of democracy . No Brazilian politician is as qualified as Lula to walk this path, but the task is not easy or the result guaranteed.

X-RAY

Luis Felipe Miguel, 55
He is a professor at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Brasilia. He coordinates the Research Group on Democracy and Inequalities (Demodê), and is a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). Author, among others, of the book “Democracy in the Capitalist Periphery: Impasses of Brazil” (Autêntica, 2022).