By MICHEL MONTEZUMA*
In politics there is no dilemma, there is a cost
The Brazilian left, especially the black literate community that is most prevalent within it, albeit in a fragmented way, is facing a difficult situation. At the heart of the issues they are dealing with, with legitimate concern, are two notable figures from this political bloc and racial group: Silvio de Almeida, accused of harassment, and Anielle Franco, one of the possible victims.
Between the Minister of Human Rights and the Minister of Racial Equality, both black intellectuals, the left-wing bloc is divided and, consequently, the black community, fragmented due to its fragile political autonomy. They debate as if the metric of defense of one side or the other, anticipated and therefore mistaken, could be determined through a competition of popularity; evaluation of political and academic resumes; ultimately, the value of these figures for the progressive field. And this dilemma is false.
It is based on a critique that is sometimes more driven by the temporality of the networks than by due reflection structured in a more measured political calculation in its exercise of differentiating between narrative and fact. In haste, naivety or excessive predominance of a subjective view of issues related to power, some believe that it is possible to immediately remedy the situation, saving the accused or victim even before the facts and their implications are fully known.
They do this because they feel humiliated, especially black people who are educated with some degree of justice because they share predicates of race, class and profession, both with the accused and the victim. That is why they want to present resolutions for a matter that embarrasses them, that bothers them deeply, because these are subjects who represent them, who are notable, supposedly among the best that we can provide as a community.
Perhaps, in these reactions to the Silvio de Almeida and Anielle Franco case, there is no basic awareness of one of the premises of the calculation and the political action derived from it: There are no dilemmas in matters that involve power, there are costs. And these costs, which may be large or small, are certainly inevitable.
In other words, it is impossible to save the accused or the victim solely on the level of political narratives, because in this superficial instance of reality, lacking the materiality of the facts, the damage to the public image of both has already been done. And it is great in its potential to publicly humiliate us, imposing on us a historic defeat in what concerns black representation in the federal executive.
So, who should we defend? The answer to this question is not primarily located in the past trajectory of the political subjects involved. It lies in other issues that guide our actions as a social class and, consequently, as a racial group. Questions that we must always return to when faced with these situations: What kind of society do we defend? Who are the political actors and social classes that can organize us in the task of transforming the social order?
As soon as we obtain these answers, we will immediately know that complacency with any form of violence against women is unacceptable, regardless of the political position of the accused within the progressive camp. Thus, as we will know and also defend, any movement to criminalize black men that does not take place through the requirements of due and unavoidable due process, where the right to defend themselves is guaranteed, is a product of structural racism that aims to preserve a form of social organization of racist power from which our community, so in need of autonomy and political maturity, will be perpetually alienated from the political-institutional spaces where decisions about the direction of the country are made. In objective terms, our defense must always start from the project of society that we defend, our calculation must consider the costs to the class and racial group through a systematic vision, based on the synthesis, of what is at stake for us in the political struggle.
Without the necessary reflection on our position as a class, racial group and political bloc, we will behave in relation to the political chronicle based on the interests of other sectors that do not embody historically, economically and culturally what we were, who we are and can be in the History of this country. We will not realize that the cost of our political choice is inevitable, cannot be remedied, and can be faced fairly between the theory, practice and morals that constitute our identity as a group.
And precisely for this reason, if we deal with these issues in a piecemeal manner, falling into false dilemmas, we will take positions that will further deepen the divisions in an already highly fragmented political community.
*Michel Montezuma is a PhD candidate in sociology at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
