The mobilization power made possible by social networks on the internet is a global trend. Just as an example, we have the political demonstrations articulated since the end of 2010 – then called the Arab Spring. As is well known, the organization and manifestation of civil society are fundamental for the construction of a life active policy of a country, of a people, and thus, have promoted considerable transformations such as the fall of dictators. In Brazil, nowadays, despite the fact that we do not live in the same political conditions as those countries in the East, we are constantly faced with cases of corruption and mismanagement of public affairs. Such events have also mobilized society to reveal its discontent through demonstrations.
But what is the difference between the manifestations of the Arab Spring and those that take place in Brazilian society? The intensity. Like what happened in Egypt, what we have is a movement that takes to the streets intensely, for days on end, even with clashes against the State, represented in its police forces. In Brazil, however, much is limited to the scope of the internet and demonstrations with scheduled days and times, as seen on the last holiday of September 7th, the day of celebration of National Independence.
In addition, another very curious question may raise a debate about the nature of these Brazilian manifestations. Its organizers clearly express their repudiation of the participation of political parties, admitting only – as seen in September 2011 – organizations and institutions such as the CNBB (National Conference of Brazilian Bishops), the OAB (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil) and the ABI (Brazilian Press Association). But would it be possible to promote changes in national policy without the mechanisms inherent to democracy? Therefore, based on the speech of those who said that political parties should stay out of this demonstration, wouldn't we be facing a contradiction? To what extent do these demonstrations – like those that took place in Brazil in 2011 – actually yield results? Maurice Duverge, in his book The Political Parties (1980), already asked this same question: “Would a regime without parties be satisfactory, however? Here is the real question [...]. Would freedom be better preserved if the Government had before it only scattered individuals, unconnected in political formations?” (DUVERGER, 1980, p.456).
In fact, this author asked this question to reaffirm his argument in favor of the existence of parties. Taking the classic precepts of Political Science, we know which political parties would be responsible for the feasibility of this social participation, serving as channels between the constituted State and Society Civil. Also according to this author (1980, p. 459), “historically, parties were born when the popular masses began to really enter political life [...]. Parties are always more developed on the left than on the right. To suppress them would be, to the right, an admirable means of paralyzing the left”. In general terms, the author suggests that the suppression of parties could strengthen the interests of elites (according to the quote, on the right), from a oligarchy, since the parties would minimally guarantee - at least in theory - a balance in the political election between classes and groups that make up the society. Considering that we live in an indirect democracy (in which we elect our representatives to assume the positions and so we do not participate directly in the discussion about the laws, for example), the parties become fundamental.
But in Brazil, disbelief and lack of trust in democratic institutions would be the basis of argument that rejects the participation of political parties in more recent demonstrations in history national. Also according to Duverger, “democracy is not threatened by the regime of parties, but by the contemporary course of their internal structures” (ibidem, p. 459), which are often committed to interests outside those of the militants or the population itself. Such structures are only committed to what concerns the plans of a ruling elite of those same parties. Given this finding, although the book cited is a work from the 1950s, it still retains a certain relevance. Therefore, this distortion of the functions of the parties and the functions of their representatives who hold public positions (deputies, senators, among others) would be the reason why Brazilians and society in general would have lost their confidence.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
However, trying here to promote a more critical look at these manifestations, if on the one hand the importance of mobilizing society is undeniable, on the other hand, their permanence, intensity and articulation (so that their claims are discussed in plenary through parties) are aspects fundamental. Even a situation of social revolution requires a degree of greater organization and political militancy that goes beyond outbursts of indignation and revolt, that is, even the radical change of a regime can only be the result of an articulated, cohesive, effective process, as seen in countries like Egypt and the Libya. One cannot deny the importance of social networks for political purposes, nor the reality of disapproval of Brazilian society with so many scandals in the most different spheres and institutions of power Public. However, that is why such sporadic manifestations have weight to promote radical changes in policy maybe it's a little risky, even more when they are emptied of the possibility of party participation politicians. If, on the one hand, these are signs of change in relation to the political behavior of Brazilian citizens, on the other, unfortunately, the scenario of generalized political apathy still prevails.
It must be said that public opinion and organizations through new communication vehicles do have weight fundamental in a democracy, but democratic institutions must be used to achieve legitimate and effective. Just think of the way in which the “Clean Record” law originated through the claim of an organization that did not government, but only became effective after being adopted and defended as a proposal by legitimate representatives in the democratic regime. Thus, saying that political parties are not good for politics is as problematic as proposing the end of the Brazilian congress or senate due to their history marked by cases of corruption.
It is not about throwing away historical achievements for Brazilian society, but rather rethinking its behavior and political engagement during elections. Analyzing the candidate, the party, as well as monitoring his work in front of the position to which he was assigned is fundamental; monitoring that, by proving the parliamentarian's incompetence, will certainly contribute to his not being elected again. Therefore, some of these achievements, such as the possibility of the existence of parties and parliament, were the result of the organized struggle of other generations. Political freedom and the possibility of organizing into parties are the result of much struggle and demand social, headed by characters (even anonymous) who faced the dictatorship, torture, imprisonment and the exile. Thus, not being able (or not wanting to) rely on parties as mechanisms for discussion and political change is something negative for democracy itself in our times, since these instruments are integral parts of the democratic regime. Likewise, any unarticulated manifestation without the necessary intensity, which may be diluted in the midway, it only creates expectations that are perhaps closer to frustration than to reality.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
