I never thought I would one day compliment Vladimir Putin. But now, in a
moment particularly threatening to world peace — specifically, the end of
August and beginning of September 2013 —, it seems to me he´s worthy of some
medals. And that only proves the theory that even in treacherous politics there
can be redeeming turnarounds.
For that reason, the suggestion to not give the name of alive politicians
to public locations is very wise. Anything can happen before or after the death
of an “immaculate person turned into a plaque”.
Extreme moral faults can come to light and it would be very complicated to
alter names of streets and squares, for example, something that would confound
the mailmen, the GPS and all kinds of human communication. On the other hand,
people who have a bad image can unexpectedly reveal praiseworthy qualities.
Good and evil live together, although amidst scratches and bites, within every
human being, even if in different intensities.
There are two qualities which
have always drawn my respect and which are more and more absent within people
who govern the world: “personality” and “attitude”. Some might argue, with good
reason, that both qualities are synonyms; however, when closely inspected, when
sliced, dissected and scrutinized, it becomes licit to make a distinction
between both terms.
“Personality” is an essentially intellectual
virtue: thinking on your own, making your opinion known with the utmost
independence and honesty — even to yourself, which is probably the most
difficult part —, especially when all the “masters” and owners of the truth and
the money say the opposite. It also means not to give importance to criticism
from other parties, even when such criticism is veiled.
“Attitude”, on the other hand, is
a more bellicose addition to “personality”, something closer to the physical
courage of not only going against an erroneous unanimity in a soft spoken and
frightened way, but also by affirming and proving, clearly and loudly, that the
others are wrong. It is to say such a thing even amidst booing, thrown eggs,
slaps and kicks. The firmness of character when everyone else hesitates is
something admirable, almost super-human. Especially when the “bold one” is deep
down actually scared but feeling compelled to pretend he isn´t. Of course this
is only valid when the daring hero (or heroin) is not looking for a demagogical
sensationalism, aiming to capture the admiration of an audience which is
ignorant and willing to listen to lies passed as truths.
Media and opinion polls seem to
turn politicians from every inclination and from the most varied countries into
cowards. They only want compliments, as if the public and media are always
right, forgetting that the same weakness the politicians have are also present
in the population and in the editorial rooms of newspapers and magazines.
“Leaders” exist to lead, not to be led by public opinion – which, more often
than not, is none other than the opinion of the most powerful media, capable of
hiring for itself the best writing brains.
Putin doesn´t deserve praise for
his “electoral trick” of power rotation in Russia with his “buddy” who is
currently vice-president but who previously held Putin´s job. But he is
praiseworthy for his position of supporting an attack to Syria only if there
can be found reliable evidence that it was the Syrian government — and not the armed opposition — who has used
chemical weapons against the population. China´s and Russia´s vetoes in the
Security Council were one of the few examples of how the power to veto can also
be necessary in some situations.
Putin has also shown his
personality in the matter of offering temporary asylum to Edward Snowden, the
former NSA service provider who is wanted by the USA for espionage – even if in
the beginning the Russian President showed some hesitation to provide shelter
to someone who was hated by a nation which has enormous economical and military
power and with whom he intends to keep a good relationship. Even though such
decision was far from profitable in any sense to Putin or to Russia, morally it
was the only possible one. And that´s because Snowden´s “crime” was not
actually an act of bad faith, as in most felonies, but it was merely a crime of
convenience which assures the continuance of something that is morally wrong:
government´s hypocrisy. And who in their own mind could compliment and support
the continuance of hypocrisy?
Before being granted asylum,
Snowden had been in the transit area of a Russian airport for days. He would
not be able to remain in that situation for long; if he fled the airport, he
would certainly be captured by American agents; if Putin deported him to the
USA he would be tried for treason, perhaps even convicted to the death penalty
– even though the American government had recently claimed the capital
punishment would not be applied to his case and only a life sentence might be a
possibility. Such a promise made by Barack Obama would only hold a relative
value, considering that if the American legislation determined that in cases of
“treason” a death penalty was possible, then a court would have the power to,
at least theoretically, condemn him to death, therefore ignoring the
President´s promise.
It seems clear that Snowden has
not committed the crime of “treason”, after all such a felony implies a harmful
intention to transfer certain secrets to the enemies of one´s own country. The
brave former NSA employee has clearly not acted with such a specific and
treacherous intent – he has merely shown to the citizens of his own country as
well as other countries, without differentiating between allies or enemies,
that the USA has been spying the whole planet in both public and private
affairs, taking advantage of their superior technology. They have been spying
even allied governments. Such “spying” superiority, when added to its bellicous
superiority (including nuclear), gives the nation an almost absolute dominance
and control over the rest of humankind. And excessive power is always tempted
to be abusive.
Anyway, Snowden has acted as an
idealist, a cleaner, someone who was disgusted by what he had witnessed. And he
didn´t profit from his actions; on the contrary, he became an international pariah, running from one place
to another while being chased, until he at last managed to get to an airport in
Moscow, where he started living in the area which is open to the public. He
certainly was not able to have even a decent bath, since airports´ bathrooms do
not provide such facility. Snowden, moved by an ethical impulse, has become an
improvised “inspector-general” of bad political acts. His fearless action will
certainly influence politics to become, in the future, increasingly less
deceitful, and this is something very positive for humankind. It was a step which
shall be considered historical, well accepted by the good people who have
always expected governments to be less deceitful towards one another and
towards their own citizens.
In some mediocre newspaper
analysis, there are those who have said that Snowden has made a mistake, since
spying is something widespread. To those people, he is nothing but naïve. Well,
drug trafficking, embezzlement, ordered murder, slave work, swindling,
deceitful advertising, women trafficking, child pornography and a whole array
of crimes are also seen in almost every country; however, no government has
ever considered the possibility of not fighting those crimes because they are
widespread.
Putin is also correct when he
demands the courts to take legal measures against Russian cartoonists who have
disrespected him as well as his Prime-Minister by drawing them accompanied by
women in intimate situations or some such.
And what is the basis for my
support to Putin? Well, the consideration that the same degree of respect given
to human beings in general must also be given to criticized chiefs of state.
Something which is not tolerated against a garbage (or “residue”)
collector cannot be allowed against a
politician currently holding power or not. It is not because a citizen has become
a chief of state or government that he can instantly be demoralized without any
restriction. I am referring here to the “residual” continuance of human rights
even to those citizens who hold a position of power.
A few years ago, an ordinary
citizen in Brazil initiated a lawsuit — I don´t recall exactly if it was a
civil or a labor lawsuit — demanding moral damages from his former employer
because the latter forced him to dance ridiculously on a table while the other
employees made fun of him.
And what was the reason for such
a punishment from the employer? The “victim”, who was part of a sales team, was
the least effective salesmen in a certain period. His punishment, of course,
was not physical, but moral – which is far from being less painful. It´s purpose
was to demoralize him. The boss certainly claimed in his defense that the shame
was supposed to “stimulate” the employee.
But the decision was favorable to the former employee — who had resigned
or been made redundant — and the justification for the sentence was the right
that every human being has to be treated with dignity.
If that salesman couldn´t sell as
much as his colleagues, then the employer´s solution should have been to put
him in some other position or else to fire him. And it was certainly
demonstrated in the records of the lawsuit — I read about this in a legal
website — that the ridiculous dance was executed with noticeable embarrassment
to the employee. If the employee had
always been a funny guy or a kind of jester, one of those people who enjoy
being “on stage”, then such an indemnity would not be rightful.
It was a fair decision. As fair
as a similar decision would be in a case where a serious and demanding company
director was depicted in ridiculous situations by an internal newspaper (e.g.,
naked, crouched, doing his physiological needs, dancing the French can-can and
showing his behind to the audience). In summation: employers and employees,
governing and governed people, all of them have the same human rights to
maintain their dignity.
Another admirable example of
“attitude” was found in Dwight Eisenhower, who was president of the United
States from 1953 to 1961. It is well known that, when this particularly
intelligent and organizing general was leading the allied forces in the fight
against the Nazi, he became aware that one of his subordinate generals, George
Patton — a valiant but especially intolerant and aggressive military man —, had
offended and slapped a soldier who had been undergoing treatment in the Army´s
hospital. The soldier had what´s known as “Combat Fatigue Syndrome” or nervous
exhaustion. Patton didn´t accept such “sensitivities” and for that reason he
not only called the man a coward, but also kicked him out of the hospital.
Such incident was brought to
Eisenhower´s ears. And what did he do? He demanded General Patton to solemnly
apologize to the slapped soldier in front of the troop. And that´s what he did.
Not every chief of operations would do something like that, especially
considering Patton´s prestige, a man who was very admired for his courage and
for being really “tough”. Another peculiar trait of Eisenhower´s, who was an
extremely competent military man, was that he was a fierce opponent of all
kinds of war and even refused to take part in new war adventures regardless of
at least eight political requests.
I mention now three more examples
of demonstrations of “personality”, all of them seen in a Brazilian general who
has always been despised by those with left-wing inclinations. I am talking
about General Castelo Branco, who was the first Brazilian president during the
military dictatorship.
According to reports from a very
respectable journalist, Carlos Chagas, when Castelo Branco died in an aviation
accident the only assets he left to his heirs were an apartment in the Ipanema
neighborhood (in Rio) and a few shares in public and private companies. He was
an honest man. And he displayed a great respect for justice in Brazil, up to
the point that when the then president of the Brazilian Supreme Court, Justice
Ribeiro da Costa, went to him right after the 1964 Revolution took place and
proposed that lawsuits involving salary claims from magistrates should no
longer be decided by judges but instead by senators, Castelo Branco disregarded
the suggestion, arguing that he trusted the Brazilian Justice.
Another of his courageous actions
— bold because it would displease many of his military colleagues — had to do
with a judge from São Paulo, Dr. Antônio Carlos Alves Braga, who had the
audacity to go against an order from the Revolutionary Movement right at its
beginning, in a moment when everyone feared the unlimited power of the
Military. Such a fact was told to me by the judge himself and here´s a brief
description of what went on: once the Revolution was established, an officer of
the Army in the city where Dr. Alves Braga was a judge ordered the seizure of
the cattle of some of the county´s farms without any kind of formality. One of
the local farmers didn´t admit such an arbitrary way of losing his cattle, so he
presented a writ of injunction against the military authority who had ordered
the forfeit.
Dr. Alves Braga — another example of a citizen who had an aptitude for
tough decisions — accepted the injunction, preventing the sequestering of the
cattle. A little while later, an officer of the Army went to the court to speak
to the judge with the purpose of canceling the injunction, arguing that the
meat was necessary to supply the quarters and the unlimited powers inherent to
the revolutionary situation. The officer´s effort ended up being useless, after
all the judge told him that as far he knew civil legislation was still in place
and the cattle could only be seized after following every appropriate legal
procedure.
The officer in question was
unhappy with what he heard from the judge and left, obviously resentful or
openly vexed. That same night the judge admitted to his wife that she should
get ready to become the wife of an unemployed judge, since a few magistrates
had already been “chased” by the Revolution for being suspected “lefties”.
Much to the judge´s surprise, a
few days later he received a letter from Castelo Branco himself praising him
for his firm action and saying that the officer in question had already been
punished.
Last but not least, here´s
another passage related to Castelo Branco: when he was in Italy, in the end of
World War II, commanding the Brazilian soldiers who were fighting the Germans,
on the eve of an especially risky battle a low rank officer or sergeant — I
don´t recall his exact rank — refused to take part in said battle, excusing
himself from the fight for being a new father and saying he didn´t want his son
to become an orphan so soon.
Castelo Branco was asked to
resolve the matter and, after hearing the insubordinate soldier´s reasons, said
— while unholstering his gun and placing his hand on it — that if the man
didn´t fulfill his duty, his son would indeed be an orphan the following day.
It was a very clear warning and the soldier considered more prudent to
participate in the battle. The outcome: the soldier ended up earning one of the
most important badges of honor given to those who perform acts of extreme
bravery. Had he refused to do his duty, he would certainly carry with him the
tag of “coward” till the end of his days. Whether or not Castelo Branco would
have killed the soldier as he had hinted we will never know, but the mere
threat of such an action ended up being helpful to the soldier, who avoided the
stamp of weak, even though he wasn´t one – in fact, the refusal in itself was
already a demonstration of the man´s bravery, which was only proved later on
with the medal of valor.
While searching the internet for
names of military men, I came across the information that all – yes, ALL! –
five military presidents, from Castelo Branco to João Figueiredo, were honest
men, who left the Office without any increase in their patrimony. They left
government exactly as they entered it: middle-class men - and very “middle”
indeed. This is something rare nowadays and it only goes to show that they were
idealists, men who were convinced that if the left-wing took charge of the
country, Brazil would become an amplified version of Cuba with a lower per
capita income.
If there were — and there really
were — tortures and abuses against human rights during the military
dictatorship, they occurred much more due to the presence of sadistic
individuals within the lower levels of government. There are sadists
everywhere, even playing stupid pranks in colleges. And sadism would have also
very likely appeared if the “lefties” were in the government, possibly in the
form of torture and a widespread use of paredóns (“big walls”) against
“right-wing terrorists”. That´s what the human being becomes when facing
challenging and conflicting situations. Hence the need for the maintenance of
the rule of law and democracy, with an alternation in power even with all the
load of inefficiency it eventually involves. It just so happens that democracy
often gets out of hand, falling victim to its own carelessness, as a
consequence of a lack of “attitude” from governors.
In order to write the previous
two paragraphs, I confess I had to borrow a good deal of boldness and
“attitude” from the distinguished individuals abovementioned. Telling the truth
and praising the honesty of former military presidents is a taboo in Brazil,
where the winds blow almost unanimously and full of prejudice in the opposite
direction. Now, hiding such a relevant fact could even be considered a lack of
character.
I don´t yearn for the military
dictatorship but I believe some governors and magistrates are excessively
fearful to act with the energy some situations demand. The anarchy of the
recent depredations made by masked vandals has been excessively tolerated. If a
protester has his face covered, his will to plunder or attack policemen is
confessed. If a driver refuses to take the breathalyzer test, this implies a
confession of drinking before driving. It is up to him to try later on to make
justice revert his punishment through an appropriate lawsuit, with the burden
of proof that he was neither drunk nor had drunk anything before grabbing the
wheels of a vehicle. The teachers in school rooms should be able to teach and
give orders without fearing being attacked by students. There is still a
complete lack of “attitude” in our country. I just hope the excessive tolerance
towards anarchy doesn´t give rise to a growing yearning for tougher and
militarized times.
(September 11, 2013)
