By JOÃO CARLOS SALLES*

Nísia Trindade leaves us, in the unfortunate episode of her dismissal from the MS, an exemplary lesson in public dignity and education

1.

"I have to harden, but never lose my tenderness"This is perhaps the most reproduced phrase on posters and T-shirts, always accompanied by the iconic photo of Che, the image of a revolutionary. Although Che Guevara never stated it exactly like this, the phrase continues to express the best spirit of militancy and offers us a unique human key, to inspire us in the midst of a tough struggle of resistance against obscurantism and dictatorships.

Now, however, this type of sensitivity seems to be removed from politics, from any political line. On the hard ground of management and party struggles, the delicate soul can even be accused of unpreparedness and weakness. Politics would be for the strong and, in general, carried out without leaving witnesses. In this field, therefore, any excessive sensitivity would be abolished – like that which, in the past, with all due respect, was said to be feminine.

Sensitivity, on the other hand, should be the measure of a person’s humanity. Unfortunately, we tend to harden ourselves by sacrificing any tenderness. Many people forget that, with this, complete harshness, especially in detail, can leave terrible scars. We often manage to survive major attacks, but all our blood can drain away from a tiny cut, almost on the surface of the skin.

Of course, some savagery is part of human interaction, as if it were a perennial feature of every society. There is no room for illusion here. However, this “it’s nothing personal, it’s just business” attitude may be the rule in a context other than politics, since politics always requires justifications, and these are irreducible to mere results.

2.

A test of political toughness needs to be formulated, indicating who has the best chance of surviving and winning in politics and who, on the other hand, can represent a humane and progressive vision. Let us risk a possible questionnaire – and we are curious to know the opinion of the eventual reader, if he or she wishes to associate the abstract characteristics described below with names from our politics, although this speculation of ours is, as they say, merely a work of fiction.

Politicians are not distinguished by their greater or lesser intelligence, it is worth remembering. Intelligence is a given by destiny, and it is also well distributed across all categories, so that it does not in itself imply virtuous character traits. With this in mind, we can ask who usually wins the political battle: Those who run over their opponents and disrespect the interests of others, or those who hesitate to cross a traffic light? A progressive agenda or traditional and reactionary values? The democratic in management or the authoritarian? Who represents values ​​or who fights for interests? Do realists or those touched by utopia prevail? Who is measured by the obvious superiority of force or who is inclined towards arguments, details and, who knows, gibberish?

The list of questions can be extended considerably, in broad terms or in terms of immediate decisions, aiming to reveal ideological, psychological, political and intellectual aspects. If we are not mistaken in our diagnosis, the cruelty of political pragmatism is often affirmed.

Infantry divisions always tend to prevail over the concerns of the band. And whoever can draw up a classification of personalities now in power or out of it, at this moment or at others, will win a prize, providing the effective power of rulers in accordance with the chain of characteristics of this test – or of some other more sagacious and appropriate one.

For our part, we risked a private simulation, without discriminating names, since some are too obvious to deserve mention. There was nothing improbable about the terrifying conclusion we reached that those capable of bringing together the characteristics, let's say, of being ideologically reactionary, politically authoritarian and personally rude might seem more apt for politics and have more power.

An absurdity, without a shadow of a doubt; but such attributes can be read as an aptitude for politics and more conducive to obtaining results, in a similar way to how competition seems preferable to many because it is capable of making us reach the “best of results”, even at the price of extracting the worst from people. On the other hand, applying the same test, sensitive, courteous minds, willing to accept multiple “considerations” would be condemned to failure and obsolescence.

Given this taxonomy, with the projection of hellish scenarios, who knows to what extent these rude people can go in the exercise of power. Nor can we predict how subservient to their excesses those who, without due pride, attribute to them merits that they far from having or rights that we should deny them may be.

3.

There are great and rare leaders who are able to add a personal touch to the exercise of their public functions. Every public figure knows that the game is tough. However, amidst the conflict of interests, the great leader establishes a unique and personal bond with his followers – a bond so strong that it seems independent of the most petty circumstances and other mortal trifles. We don't just want food, after all; we want food, fun and art.

We work twice as hard to reciprocate a simple caress, an attention that seems sincere to us. As a good preacher used to say, kindness begets kindness; and pure aridity becomes the natural terrain only for those capable of sacrificing principles for interests.

In his ability to create a special bond with people, our president Lula is unmatched. His embrace seems sincere and welcoming, capable of overcoming any resistance and of fascinating even the most skeptical. Consider this a statement made without the slightest proof. These non-transferable bonds can only be attested to by those who have experienced some kind of conversation, some ritual, even a fleeting one, of closeness and welcome. In other words, they cannot be proven to those who are not familiar with them and do not need to be demonstrated to the converted.

Now, however, we have multiple testimonies that, supposedly, part of the charm has faded – which may be reflected in the recent drop in the government’s approval rating. How is it possible, however, for a bond that is quite undemonstrable to dissolve? How could the most welcoming leadership lack its power of enchantment? Allow me here a hypothesis, this one also resistant to mere proof.

Now, it is really difficult to understand the change, if it really exists. After all, prison did not make him bitter, but perhaps, as part of our hypothesis, it took away much of his patience. He returned to the scene valuing those who bring him more “deliveries” and the most immediate ones, although to do so they may have to mix personal aggressiveness and political shrewdness. Time has shrunk.

However, the damage that can result from living with people who have great power but whose intelligence (usually great) can coexist with a lack of politeness and, at times, with reactionary views of life in common or with aggressive and authoritarian methods to obtain any results is incalculable. It cannot be only or mainly that, of course; but it is that too. Our president should take a bath and distance himself from harmful people, recovering his characteristic sensitivity and his singular kindness.

4.

In short, Brazil's greatest leader needs to start spending more of his time caring for others – a virtue he has no equal in exercising. However, recent episodes show him far from doing so. They show, instead, a growing impatience, something that no communication strategy can cure.

And, make no mistake, adversaries who are a danger to our democracy will demand any mistake and magnify any fault. The right, above all, which is inherently violent, is anxiously waiting to show that, by full right, the agenda of aggression and exclusion is all its own, even when covered by academic titles and technical speeches of competence.

In addition to the leaf bath, which is legal, I suggest that our president be invaded by some lyricism. After all, faced with a context that has become arid and tailor-made to make those who, men or women, are simply ruder seem stronger, we must counterattack with some poetry.

To understand the gravity of a banal gesture, let us turn to one of our most sensitive poets, Mario Quintana, who is capable of extracting elevated poetry even from small newspaper advertisements. Quintana abhors indifference, haste, and disregard, even when faced with someone who is inert and has stopped functioning because they have been robbed of time. In other words, even when faced with someone who has died, a symbolic delicacy is required. In his prose poem “Of Time” he teaches: “One should never look at one’s watch near a dead person. It is tactless, my dear sir… cruel… unforgivable rudeness…”

Imagine how serious the rudeness is when one is in a hurry when faced with someone who remains, who will continue their public service and who should be encouraged and praised in their struggle. As if he were a teenager who is glued to his cell phone, Lula was caught looking at his watch impatiently during the ceremony that had the clear and well-known meaning of being the farewell from office of an extraordinary public figure, Minister Nísia Trindade – who, moreover, is his correct and competent ally.

A Lula in top form, with his rare political talent, could have transformed the moment into a simple tribute, a pat on the back, but he was far from that. He could have emphasized that someone of Nísia's stature, having already rendered a great service, is still alive and well and, for that very reason, beyond any ceremonial courtesy, she would deserve all the gestures even more.

The embarrassment became visible because Nísia Trindade did not lose her composure, nor did she express any resentment. Her agenda, including as head of the ministry, has been broader; and she has not abandoned, nor will she abandon, her commitment to a project that, after all, even leaving victims along the way, binds us to a democratic society, with health and, we hope, with generous doses of delicacy.

Some want to forget this episode quickly. Others insist on the image of “surrender” – a terrible vocabulary, by the way, that should be abolished in our midst, because it reduces political interaction to a measure of commerce and not to the realization of principles. The political culture of surrender levels all parties, subordinating them all to the same measure. That is why velvety voices from different camps say with supposed wisdom: Nísia Trindade would not have made the proper “surrender”.

There are two mistakes in this criticism. The first is the generic deviation that we rejected above, because it is loaded with the old rhetoric of “progress,” which disregards circumstances and spares nothing and no one. The second is the application of a management measure that ignores the specificity of health policies, whose practice Nísia Trindade respected when she began to implement the More Access to Specialists program in the states, that is, following what is necessary for the SUS and without allowing the speed of implementation to override the comprehensive care of people – and this is good policy, done at the right time, at the right pace and in accordance with the best and most successful practices.

Against this double tainted reading of the “deliveries”, it is time to reiterate our compliments to Nísia Trindade, with the certainty that she will continue her remarkable public service, with all her brilliance and vivacity. With her elegant posture, she also reminds us of the best we can have and that we continue to believe that it should, indeed, be well represented by President Lula himself.

Although she allegedly did not “deliver” to the Ministry of Health in the way they asked her to, her results are expressive and strategic, and can be better appreciated by people in the health field. Finally, she also leaves us, in this unfortunate episode, an exemplary lesson in public dignity and education. She reminds us that, no matter how correct a decision is, it can never be packaged in bad politics. Sensitivity is revolutionary, not rudeness.

*Joao Carlos Salles He is a professor at the Department of Philosophy at the Federal University of Bahia. Former rector of UFBA and former president of ANDIFES. Author, among other books, of Public university and democracy (boitempo). [https://amzn.to/4cRaTwT]

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE