INTERVIEWS WITH THE PRESIDENT

II. Interview with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso,
Veja, September 10, 1997

Veja — Imagine that this is the 7th of September, ten years from now. What is Brazil like?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — It’s another country. But why? Because Brazil first started changing quite some time ago. When I was the Foreign Minister, and things were still in a jumble— and by this I mean both our inflation and also the disarray in government and the State — I travelled a great deal. Even back then I ‘d say to people in other countries, "You’re looking at Brazil all wrong, you’re only looking at it from the point of view of inflation, and yet the country has changed." The real news in Brazil doesn’t involve the government or the State, but society, society as a whole, the country. That is why the dynamic force that will turn us into another Brazil ten years from now is the populace, the Brazilian people, society at large — because of the way in which they are developing. Furthermore, the government and the economy are being thoroughly restructured, a process which is already showing signs of having become irreversible.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — What happened under the authoritarian regime? There was a debate among the opposition groups. Some people felt that it would be necessary to coach political organizations to break the State. Others, and I include myself, thought that strategy would never work. In fact a mutation was already occuring back then, a change which began by taking root in society and which eventually affected the authoritarian regime itself. At that point society invented agents, via the media. The media has a fundamental role to play in our new society. The media invented the SBPC(8), for example, and the role of the intellectuals. I myself was involved. Lula appeared(9), as did unions and the more progressive business community. In fact, all these new agents were created virtually. None of this was the result of the dynamic of traditional politics or political parties. Nor was any of this produced because of the views of the prince, in this case General Golbery(10), or because of the ideas expressed by Huntington(11), whom Golbery conferred with when planning the period of political decompression(12) . All these factors did have a role to play, but the dynamism of the process really came from another source: society itself. Further examples are the campaign for direct elections(13) and the impeachment of Collor(14). Society as a whole, the people, those among the populace who are organized, all know how to get moving. And even the segments that don’t are beginning to be more influential. It is society that has been at the forefront of all the major changes over the last few decades.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Today it still holds true. How does one change a society? People have what we could describe as a mechanical view of the process. They think changes always come about in the same way: one system is broken up by another. But that’s not the way things happen. Sometimes things are already changing and no one notices. Those in the midst of the process of transformation aren’t aware of it. Much later a historian or a political scientist or a political leader comes along and says that things have changed. Ex post one can say: there’s been a revolution. While things are still changing, the old and the new live side by side. And not all the old is bad nor all the new good. It is a fundamentalist mistake to see things that way. Everything is intertwined. Progress and resistance are traits of both the old and the new components. Changes no longer occur as described in the classic formulas of the 19th century, whose theories imparted the idea that groups must first organize, then acquire an awareness of the need for change, then produce agents to bring about the change, and then prime a social class to effect the change.... That doesn’t exist anymore. Contemporary societies have social structures that are far less rigid than before. Change doesn’t occur today simply because a powerful group decides to change. Societies change in a different way. I think that we already have all the ingredients for this new style in Brazil, a style which you can call anything you want, such as modern, for example, although that word means nothing to me. At any rate, it is a different structural standard for societies.

Veja — You state that Brazil will be another country ten years from now. But will it be a better country?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — That is the question. Will it be better? For whom? We now stand at a new crossroads in history — not Brazilian history, but world history — and there are so many transformations underway that a number of concerns are being aroused. I personally believe this new country will display more capacity for integration, in other words, less exclusion. I do not agree with those who foresee a catastrophe in this regard. It will be a more democratic country, not so much in terms of the democracy that we have already conquered, but in terms of the new factors that are part of a democracy — more channels to allow society to express its views, a more permeable society, and more widely scattered decision-makers. Furthermore I believe that because of the strength of our economy and because of its physical and natural potential we are in position which means that in 10 years we may be a country that will be capable of integration without disintegrating. So you can see that my view of the country ten years from now is extremely optimistic: I see more democracy, more inclusion and more skill at taking advantage of our natural conditions and opportunities.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — The phase involving the famous process of globalization, for example. Globalization is not a value. It’s not something you can hope for or that you should want or that you can love. It a force that is already underway as part of the expansion of the capitalist system throughout the world, causing disasters on the one hand and a number of positive modifications on the other. To understand this process one must compare it with other great moments in history. Today we are in the midst of a transformation which is equivalent to the period 500 years ago, at the time when commercial capitalism was being formed, and when capitalism spread throughout the world, the New World was discovered, and the Renaissance occurred. Today’s era is an equivalent time, when changes are being built on the foundation of enormous transformations in technology.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Of course. There are similarities today, but we have reached a different level. In our case there’s the conquest of planetary and even extra-planetary space. And in fact, production systems have become integrated, but then there is the complication of the investment capital which has broken loose and is floating through the world. This last problem is an extremely negative factor in terms of the management of every one of our societies. I delivered a speech at ECLAC(15) just after taking office, in which I suggest the ECLAC should focus on studying the effects of the worldwide financial system on the countries of the world, as there are no institutions to control the system. And each time the G7 meet I send each president a letter in which I call their attention to this problem. Some very timid measures have been taken. And why timid? Because no one really knows what to do. You have both a production system which is becoming highly integrated and also advances in telecommunications. So very large production units can in fact function at a worldwide level - with a part of the production in one country, another part in a different country and closed exchanges between them. This is one ongoing process. Another involves capital, not the investment capital that moves the production system but floating capital. One can control the production system. One can interfere in the decision-making process that governs production. But as far as that huge mass of floating capital resources is concerned, there is no country, there is no government, there is no Central Bank or even the BIS(16) in Zurich - nothing is capable of controlling that capital. There is a share of the capital in the new system which moves with tremendous velocity, and which is not controlled. I don’t even know if it is controllable.

Veja — Isn’t this floating cloud of financial resources a reflex of the worldwide social security and pension fund crisis? Aren’t people looking for savings that won’t be based on the more traditional financial foundations?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Yes, they’re looking for the future. To guarantee the future. Let me give you a little armchair history lesson. Today we are going through both a Renaissance, and a Romantic period straight out of the 19th century, with its feeling of malaise. The Renaissance gave humankind a feeling of confidence. Then in the 18th century, the Century of Lights, this feeling was reinforced. Next came the 19th century, with its romanticism and malaise, its discomfort à la Byron. Whereas here, today, we are in the midst of a fusion of the two trends. On the one hand, a Renaissance or Enlightenment, those who believe in reason, and on the other hand those who feel anguish. People may not know how to identify the problem precisely, but they do feel that there is a great deal of insecurity in today’s world. And there is.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Yes, globalization does create insecurity. But there is something new, too. This insecurity can be felt not just in developing countries but in developed countries, too. Every country’s agenda is beginning to look quite similar in that regard, although the objective situation is not the same. Some are prosperous, some are beginning to prosper, and others continue to be poor. Some are even part of the vast masses of those who have been excluded - to the extent that they have even been excluded from globalization, a fact which generates another type of anguish. But there is one type of anguish which is common to various types of countries. The keynote in France, Germany or Spain is similar to ours.

Veja — The difference is that they don’t have as many destitute people as we do.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — That is the difference. The countries I just mentioned enjoy a higher degree of prosperity, but feel the same degree of uncertainty others do. Because uncertainty doesn’t stem from a lack of prosperity, but from the new type of prosperity we see in today’s world. But despite the similarities, I don’t think our fate is to repeat the European experience. I have never believed that you can replicate what other countries have done. History never repeats itself. Dependency theory ... the criticism levelled against it has been so unsophisticated that I don’t even bother to reply. People interpret everything mechanically. This is what I used to advocate with dependency theory: Universal factors do exist, but take care, because the effect of such factors on different societies depends on the way in which we organize our domestic reaction to the factors. Now it’s the same thing. You have universal factors, in other words globalization, lack of control over capital, the resultant anguish — both in Brazil and out there — and social security problems; but each country can organize its reaction differently. That is why I don’t believe that we’re going to go through the same things as Europe ten years from now.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Yes, I am. Let me tell you about a few of the things that make us different. First, the Europeans really did have a welfare society. And people felt a positive tie to the State — which might also may have tied them down. Second, there is no more room for dynamic investments in the European world. So any innovation in technology leads to unemployment there. But that’s not the way things are in the United States, in China, in Japan - and it’s not like that in Brazil either. People in Brazil assimilate worries that don’t pertain to us. To begin with, there’s a kind of anguish which pertains to the wealthy. There isn’t that much prosperity in Brazil; instead there’s poverty. So around here we still have to include the State as a key factor in solving the problem of inequality. That is why all the talk of economic neoliberalism irritates me so much. We don’t even have any liberalism here, much less the "neo" bit. What we have in Brazil is a "patrimonialist" system, with a privatized State. We have to rebuild the State, which is what I’m trying to do, so that we can deal with the problems facing the majority — the sickness, the poverty and the lack of education. That is why we will always have plenty of activity for the State in Brazil. If we were to let the market loose, poor Brazil! In fact, when it comes to this issue I actually believe the opposite of what people say I believe. What I actually believe is that if we give the market free rein, then poor Brazil! Not that there won’t be any growth, but it will be growth cum exclusion. On the other hand, if we leave the present State alone, without any reforms, then I feel just as sorry for Brazil. Because such a State will never respond to our needs in a proper fashion, not in the economic or in the social spheres. Aside from all this, another difference between Brazil and Europe is this: our society is structured in a way that is more American than European. The class structure.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — ... in terms of the inequality, the slavery, the physical space, people’s geographic mobility, their professional mobility. We have no reason to believe that Brazil will reorganize in such a way as to follow the tack taken by Europe, where unemployment has grown significantly.

Veja — Don’t you believe that inequality is the great buffer against unemployment in Brazil, in the United States and in similar countries? Inequality means you can pay less, exploit more, and extend fewer guarantees - which perversely enough, functions as a way to absorb manpower.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — That may even be true. But I think the most perverse problem in Brazil is something else. How does Brazil make adjustments to its labor market? In a self-righteous, hypocrital way, like pharisees. Because those who are part of the formal labor market work under the rules of worker’s legislation, which does guarantee a few rights but which also creates difficulties and obstructs mobility; so what has happened? The formal labor market has been paralyzed and the informal market has grown. Informal does not mean worse from an economic point of view. Data have shown that the greatest growth in income can be found in the informal sector. But the informal sector pays no taxes, which creates fiscal consequences. The reason unemployment isn’t increasing in Brazil is because the informal labor market is growing, and that’s not good. And it’s not that the people who are part of the informal sector are worse off. The reason the growth of the informal labor market is bad is because it will affect the funding for social security and welfare programs. Informal labor markets are just a temporary solution.

Veja — How does one jobs to offset the growth in the informal labor market?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — There are ways. For example, Brazil has a huge agricultural sector. In this regard the MST(17) is right. Actually, not so much the MST, but the settlements and small family enterprise policy. That is why I have been giving so much attention to programs like PRONAF(18), which was created by the government in order to provide financing to small family farms and businesses in rural areas. For quite some time — in fact the ten years that you suggested — we will have to put a great deal of emphasis on such efforts. And particular attention should be paid to the many types of job that arise thanks to family smallholdings. And that is where one needs the government again, because without government we’re left with nothing. We need the government in an alliance with those that make up this new society — non-governmental organizations and other pressure groups in society. We have to come up with a number of different forms of activity, and ways to finance them, because a country as enormous as Brazil with our large population will never be able to find jobs for all our labor force in the segment of the economy which is becoming internationalized. And we have to be careful not to have two Brazils, one that is becoming an international player and one that gets pushed to the sidelines, one which prospers and one which gets stuck in the same place. The modifications in today’s world do not all lead to uniformity. All countries are not going to be the same. There are factors that lead to differentiation, and this is where a phrase that may sound old-fashioned crops up again: "the national interest". Globalization has not revoked the interests of the nation. I personally favor a type of industrial policy that will allow those sectors which have already taken root in Brazil to produce and compete as part of the new world order....

Veja — Industrial policy tends to mean protectionism or subsidies. Is that what you mean?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — No. The industrial policy I’m talking about means creating the technological conditions so that we can compete, while offering suitable financing at low interest rates but without subsidies. It’s true that when people used to think of financial policy they meant subsidies and closed markets. But subsidies ultimately lead to poor capacity for technological development. In my administration things will be different. There will be no subsidies or closed markets; instead we’ll have financial and technological support. What happened to the textile industry, which everyone expected to be bought up by foreign interests? It moved to the Northeastern part of the country and received support from the governments there. Government action, State action is part of all of this. All that talk about neoliberalism is nonsense/ just for show.

Veja — You have said that Brazil will have less exclusion ten years from now. Why?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Exclusion is diminishing in Brazil, to the contrary of what one might imagine. It’s all the hubbub about exclusion that is increasing - which is a great sign. When you have a society that is so full of divisions, split by a type of apartheid, then the issue is not apparent to that society. It remains blocked. Kept from emerging. The problem is apparent to those who look in from the outside, but not to those who are part of the society — because the issue is not politicized. When it is politicized, it appears. Today the question of exclusion has become a political issue. This is a sign that a process of inclusion has begun. And there are data to prove it. The stabilization created by the Real program pulled anywhere from 8 to 13 million people up and over the poverty line. Some statistics mention 8 million people, while others mention 13 million. The sectors in which there was a real growth in income are grassroots sectors — the informal sector and civil construction. I’m giving you economic examples but exclusion is broader than economic issues alone. Take education, for example. A survey has concluded that we have 2.5 million children who are not in school. That is a lot, but we had expected the number to be r or 4.5 million. Now we’re preparing to launch some program whose objective will be to put every child in school. That will be a challenge for Brazil: to have every school-aged child in school. When more children are going to school you have a clear indicator for inclusion.

Veja — If instead of the new concept of exclusion you substitute the old theme of destituttion - is destitution increasing or diminishing in Brazil?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — It’s just like exclusion: when there’s real exclusion no one notices. You only notice it when people are beginning to be included in the system and then you feel irritated. The path followed by destitution, and this is a tragic thing to have to say, is well known. It was out there in the countryside when I was born. This was an eminently rural country, and 70% to 80% of the populace lived in the country. These figures have been inverted over the last half-century. When destitution was located in the countryside, people in cities didn’t notice it, and so they long for the past and say, "Ah, back then there were no muggings!" or "Ah, the government’s school system was so good!" it’s true. Poverty hadn’t moved to the cities yet. It began with the great migrations during and after World War II. But there were no schools or hospitals in the countryside. And why did people migrate? It wasn’t because they were looking for work but because the cities seemed better: they had schools and hospitals. There are a number of studies which show this is true.

Veja — Is this still true? Is it still better to live in one of São Paulo’s outlying slums than in rural Ceará?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — No, it isn’t. Now we’re starting to see the opposite happen. Progress is spreading, and there are better opportunities in small towns. And the countryside isn’t what it used to be. Rural areas were desolate places; there was no power. Right near here in Brasilia everything was so precarious. My paternal godfather was from the state of Goiás(19). The stories he used to tell me about Goiás were hard to believe, yet today its capital, Goiânia, has more automobiles per inhabitant than any other city in Brazil. The difference is palpable. Not that I have rose-colored glasses on. There are still a number of extremely serious problems; there are enormous urban problems, but they are different kinds of problems, such as drugs and violence. And I´m not saying there is no more destitution — I´d have to be insane to say that. But in proportional terms there is less. What’s happening today is that destitution has become more visible, more shocking and less acceptable.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Because in the past there was no way to deal with destitution and today there is. In the past, you had to accept it. Today acceptance is criminal. It’s immoral. With the per capital income in Brazil today, which is almost five thousand dollars, if not five thousand already, there is no reason for so much destitution. Let me make myself perfectly clear. If you look at things this way, then today’s situation is even worse than the past. We are more to blame than before. We, meaning society at large. I do not encourage, nor do I think it "politically correct" to fly the banner of destitution. Because that is a good way to avoid solving the problem. Because you feel that the problem is so huge that you can’t do anything about it. And that isn’t true. I think demagoguery regarding destitution is just as bad as indifference. If you want to solve a problem, you have to determine its limits. Where is the destitution? In the Northeast? In the outlying slums of big cities? And what can we do? If you don’t take that sort of an approach you get nothing done. You make a speech and then go happily off to sleep because you’ve said you oppose destitution. That is self-righteous hypocrisy.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Not necessarily. Today there seems to be a refrain that goes, "Globalization is the same thing as exclusion." Why? It really depends on the State, on government, on society and on the domestic capacity to organize all the variables that come into play. I have already said that one of the fundamental factors which determine inclusion is education. Through education we provide domestic homogeneity, and such homogeneity keeps globalization from meaning exclusion.

Veja — Globalization leads to streamlined production, and the logical consequence of that process is less use of labor. In other words, unemployment.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — But in Brazil unemployment has not grown. The reasoning is not so iron-clad. In some countries the effects are worse. The average country in Europe whose capacity to absorb investments has been exhausted, for example, will have to face a much worse problem. But I’ve already said that: Our labor market is much closer to the American model.

Veja — Brazil is also similar to the United States in terms of our population’s racial diversity. Has such diversity been helpful or has it been a hindrance to our development?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — It has helped. And it will help more and more, because the world of the future will be highly diversified. This is a matter which I think is worth repeating: Globalization is not homogenization. With globalization the production platform is homogenized but at the same time greater value is attached to differences, including cultural difference. Greater value will be attached to forms of identity, and one of the forms which our identity takes, the key form in fact, is diversity. More attention will be given to culture, in the anthropological sense of the word and in the specific sense of the word as well, meaning the production of music, theater an literature. There is a difference between us and the United States. We also had slavery, we had and still have Indians, but there is a major difference between us: we like having mixed blood.

Veja — Do you really think so? In the 19th century the predominant thinking in Brazil was that mixing led to racial degeneration.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Of course. In the 19th century they wanted to make us whiter, so they brought in immigrants to lighten us up. When there was slavery there was segregation but a phenomenon occurred which we could call the "browning" or cultural "mulatization" of Brazil. Darcy Ribeiro(20) talks about this all the time, and before him Gilberto Freyre(21) used to, too, although in a rather romantic way which denied the violence between blacks and whites. I am not denying the violence. A study has shown that you’re most likely to be poor in Brazil if you’re a black woman with children and no husband and if you live in the inland areas of the Northeast. So on an existential level there is some mystification involved when we say we like the fact that we’re all different. But on a cultural level we do like it. We boast that we’re the country of Carnival, of African religions....

Veja — In the United States blacks have made great strides up the social ladder as a result of government policies. Isn’t this experience applicable to Brazil?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Such advancement has been more successful in the United States than in Brazil — and by that I mean deliberate advancement led by the American government and Judiciary at a number of different levels. People in Brazil are horrified to think of a State which privileges specific groups. If you talk about affirmative action for blacks or women, people will react very badly. People prefer to let things evolve naturally, and that takes more time. In Brazil today our task must be to attach greater value to diversity. And we’ve been doing that. Everytime I get a chance I talk about these issues. We have helped reinforce the idea that Zumbi(22) is a national hero, we’ve set up a commission of black Brazilians in the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Education has adopted the policy of deleting all bias against blacks, women or Indians from textbooks. We have to admit that the United States has been victorious in pursuing their policies. If we’re not in a position to use the same methods here, for example by adopting effective integration policies, then we must work on cultivating greater awareness of the need for integration. We want to show that we are a mixed-blood country and that that is good.

Veja — You mentioned the double reaction to the new world order, in other words the feeling of malaise which survives side-by-side with enlightened optimism, and curiously enough, or perhaps symptomatically so, it is generally the most favored classes in society that feel the optimism.

Veja — The greatests enthusiasts of globalization come from the business community....

Veja — The malaise is most accentuated among the middle class, the wage-earners....

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — In a survey of people’s view of the future - people were asked if they thought their own lives would be better than their children’s live — the optimism was increased in the lowest and highest classes. Most of the doubts were found in the middle. So on the basis of this survey we might conclude that the middle class does in fact feel the most anguish. And for good reason, since the changes have led to a relative loss in status for the middle class. That isn’t good. It is good for the country to see that the poor are making progress but it’s not all good for those who suffer a relative loss in status. Furthermore, the middle class is more aware, it reads more, it keeps up more — and it’s more frightened that the problems in other countries might also occur here.

Veja — But at any rate, if it is true that the greatest enthusiasts are those who are doing best, including countries that are doing best, then the next question must be: Isn’t globalization a new form of domination?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Everything is a new form of domination. I have no doubts as to that. The problem is how to live with the situation, how to stand up to it. And the answer is: democracy. In light of the new types of economies the challenge becomes the need to broaden democracy. The major issue facing us involves building a more radical type of democracy. If you ask who can be called progressive today, the answer is: Being progressive means being part of the attempt to make create a more radical democracy. Who are today’s progressive thinkers? Eric Hobsbawm has done some thinking. Bobbio, too. Anthony Giddens has done some thinking. And what line did they follow in their thinking, irregardless of their intellectual origins? The line that deals with how to broaden democracy. The other day I read a fascinating article in the Italian newspaper called Il Sole-24 Ore. It was the summary of a speech by the leader of the former Italian Communist Party, Massimo D’Alema. In his speech he returns to Gramsci. Gramsci wrote a famous article called "Americanism and Fordism" in which he criticizes the left by saying: the source of all leftist thought, all the left-wing, even social-democracy, is Marxist-Leninist and statist. Gramsci injects what we would now call liberalism into the discussion — the values of freedom, dynamism and individual accountability. And he says, "We simply cannot have people in Italy retiring on a pension at the age of 25."; and "With these corporatist groupings no progress is possible." Gramsci! So all the progressive thinkers today are "gramscians", whatever their roots. They help to create a more radical democracy. But how does one become more radically democratic? What does that mean? It means letting more people participate in decision-making. It means making the State more permeable. There are other elements to this new progressive thinking. One must incorporate global dimensions, and that means worrying about the environment. Now matter where you look, the question must be, " What can be done to attain well-being?" We have to bring up the issue of happiness. How can people be happier ? They can’t be happy when there is pollution or when nature is being destroyed. They can’t feel happy when their children’s future is being destroyed, and that is where development comes in: we have to find proper ways in which to grow. How do you provide more access to information? How do you increase competition? These are the questions. In answer to your question, it is true that globalization is a new form of domination. Therefore we need a radical critique of globalization. It would be pathetic to think, "Oh yes, everything’s being globalized, how nice!" That isn’t my perspective at all. Things are becoming globalized, and that fact changes life in a number of ways, with results that can be good or bad. We need a critical discussion of globalization, but such criticism shouldn’t begin with a defense of the old ways, such as "Let us close off the economy" or "Let us now build a bureaucratic State." That is pathetic. Roberto Freire(23) has been saying some interesting things. I liked an interview he gave recently. It’s no coincidence that he is a gramscian former Communist, just like D’Alema.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Roberto Campos does, but for the other side. I don’t agree with him. He’s a liberal. He really does want the State to shrink. To regulate less. The other day he criticized me. He said I’m not a "convert". He’s right. I really haven’t been converted to the view that the State should not regulate. What are we actually doing, in practice. We’re creating regulatory agencies. We are privatizing and creating regulatory agencies. We’re creating a new State. And when I mention regulation I am also thinking of the radicalization of democracy. . Oversight really means the radicalization of democracy. Oversight via agencies in which society has a voice, and not by authoritarian means — although, curiously enough, people always seem to be wanting me to be a dictator....

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Yes. When people come here and say, "Why don’t you do it?", or "Do it; you’ve just got to do it!" It’s just part of the nation’s sub-culture.

Veja – People aren’t necessarily asking for things to be done in a dictatorial way.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – They want me to get involved in matters that don’t pertain to the Executive Branch. Like when that Pataxó Indian was burned alive(24) — a terrible thing to happen. "Why don’t you put some pressure on the judge?" Or when the Encol company went bankrupt(25). "Why doesn’t the government solve the homeowners’ problem? You can do it! Issue a temporary executive order," they say. Imperial will must prevail. People unconsciously want a dictator.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – Roberto Freire’s views are interesting, and not because he agrees with me but because he sees that something new is happening in Brazil, and because he does recognize that we’re doing something new. It does no good to say, "That’s the PFL(26) party line; that’s the PPB(27)" or "The government has surrendered to the PFL; that’s a PPB proposal". Those are just illusions. You won’t find any proposals that have been rubber-stamped by anyone. I once was present at a tenure commission’s meeting when Paula Beiguelman, a professor at the University of São Paulo who has written a book on the schools of thought during the Empire period, was defending her tenure candidacy dissertation. She stated that Joaquim Nabuco represented progressive thinking while Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos was the consummate conservative thinker. And then Sergio Buarque de Holanda, a very wise man, asked, "Dr. Beiguelman, have you read Burke?" Burke is the great English conservative theoretician. "Do you really think that what all those Brazilians back then did or thought had anything to do with Burke? Because the conservative school of thought is a serious matter. You might disagree with it, but it has strong underpinnings." Whereas in Brazil, Sérgio Buarque concluded, our thinkers weren’t really conservative, "just backward." To a tremendous extent our problem is just that: We’re backward, we’ve fallen behind. Our problem is not whether or not we’re left-wing, right-wing, liberals, social democrats or conservatives. Our problem is that we’ve fallen behind. We need an aggiornamento. A lot of people have realized that fact, and are quite vocal about it. In the press, too. And sometimes they find fault with our backwardness, the government’s backwardness – the government’s doubts, the commitments the government sometimes takes on. I might even occasionally feel irritated, but in philosophical terms I agree. I think I’ve contributed to making progress. I think that any critical reading of political activity today, for example, can no longer ignore what we’re doing. Anything new needs to be examined and then the question has to be, "Can we innovate even more?" That’s the right question. The right thing to do is to point something out and say, "That isn’t innovative. That’s backward." But that takes a dialogue.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – The mental attitude of the opposition, whether it’s on the right, on the left or middle-of-the-road, doesn’t include any understanding of the fact that the radical essence of democracy – à la Habermas, if you will — is based on airing issues in public arenas and then thrashing them out, going to the root of issues, trying to convince others .... Unless you understand that, you cannot understand how to produce modern political thinking on the left. Actually I don’t like the work "modern", but basically I mean policies that will make things move forward. And I would go farther: Progressive thinking has to be optimistic. Albert Hirschman has written an admirable book on reactionary rhetoric in which he states that pessimists are conservative: "Plus ça change plus c’ est la même chose", "Give up your rings so you won’t lose your fingers" .... It’s all rhetoric against change. That is the essence of conservative thought. The criticism leveled against the left is conservative. It reflects the belief that nothing changes. Or the wish to have nothing change. Why? Because since the critics are not essentially democratic, and thus do not recognize that you have to have a public arena, which means room for disagreement, they conclude that only they themselves are capable of change. Because they are fundamentalists. "If you’re not my friend you’re my enemy." It’s a fundamentalist view – pessimistic regarding day-to-day affairs and optimistic when it comes to the eschatology of things, way down the road — once they’ve taken over. That isn’t democratic.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – There are a great many others. The other day I read a book by Augusto de Franco, the President of Citizen’s Action, the group started by Betinho(28). Franco used to belong to the PT(29). The book is interesting; it’s called The New Party. I agree with some of the points he makes regarding the meaning of the radical nature of democratization. But there’s a problem that hasn’t been solved, that no one knows how to solve: even though societies change via mechanisms which they themselves create, even though the radical essence of democracy requires more interlocutors, public arenas, discussions, the incorporation of new topics - like the environment - despite all of the above , any discussion of the division of power has no choice but to include political parties. Which means you have no choice but to ask the next question: which party? What kind of party is truly capable of being consistent with a radically democratic society? A party that has no hegemonic aspirations nor the petulancy to believe that it alone can save the day? That understands the need to discuss alliances? Anyone who opposes the formation of coalitions is essentially anti-democratic, and that brings us back to Gramsci again. I have always supported the idea of alliances. I don’t believe in any party which claims that it can, all on its own, lay new foundations for the State, society, and the happiness of all.

Veja – But if these parties, like the PT, shed their fundamentalist side, won’t they cease to exist?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – They will, I agree. But the PT wasn’t born that way. It got that way because it proved incapable of adapting to the winds of change. I can’t believe you can have a democracy in a society as complex as ours without parties. You can’t govern within the framework of parties alone, but you can’t govern without them, either. But what party? This is an issue that hasn’t been dealt with yet – how such a party would function in terms of its proposals, its organization, everything.

Veja — You are proposing, or imposing, a cruel dilemma as far as the PT and similar parties are concerned. Either they go on as is, and never get anything practical done, or else they shed their fundamentalist nature, and cease to exist.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – If they cease to exist, they can create another party. Why did they let themselves go so far? I don’t think the death of a party is particularly important in historical terms, as long as there’s another one. Some adapt. Look at what happened in Europe. The parties have changed. What happened to the Labour Party in the UK? It changed, quietly.

Veja - But didn’t it become disfigured in the process? It’s rather hard to grasp just what the Labor Party is these days.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – It’s actually quite hard to grasp just what the Left is these days. But that’s the way things are. Giddens , whom I quoted earlier – today he’s the director of the London School of Economics, a professor in Cambridge – has an interesting book called Beyond Left and Right. There’s no point in remembering what the Labour Party was like in Attlee’s time. But that’s how we think in Brazil. The European Socialist Parties are thinking about the radical essence of democracy, and about how to keep prosperous. In France this isn’t quite clear yet, but in Spain the socialists from the PSOE(30) have managed to adapt and the Portuguese socialists, too. In Italy, the former Communist Party has joined the government in an alliance with Prodi, a university professor. He’s someone who thinks about the world. I asked him what he was going to do with Maastricht, because Maastricht is a real headache in Europe. Maastricht means putting things in order, and whenever you put things in order someone, or many someones, always lose. Prodi answered, "We have no alternative. Around here, if there’s no Maastricht, then we won’t put our economy in order." So you can see that Italy’s political leaders are in fact tackling the new issues. In Brazil we really have to make an effort to get people to tackle new issues. In order to make any progress we would have to free ourselves of our backwardness; we would have to have less inhibitions about talking things out. I think it is just pathetic that the head of the opposition has not talked with me. I’m not talking about a private chat but about a real discussion of the issues without making use of rhetoric. They keep saying, "They’re giving away the Vale do Rio Doce Company(31)," "They’re selling off Brazil’s sovereignty." They don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know what conditions prevailed during the privatization of the Vale company, nor why. "PROER(32) was created to save bankers." It’s incredible that there are people who won’t sit down with me at given moments in time – not to agree with me, but to ask why something or other was done, so that they can become informed critics. If the country doesn’t see the opposition taking the reins in its hands, it won’t vote them into power. We need to have a realistic utopia, to use an expression I’m fond of because it’s a paradox, a phrase Giddens also uses. We have to have one foot planted firmly on the ground and one eye on the future. We need to understand that globalization exists but that exclusion does, too. And don’t think I can solve everything just because I want to. The talk about "political willingness" is another mistake. It’s just asking for a dictator again. "You can do it if you’ve got the political will to do it." Really, this is just an authoritarian, voluntarist view again.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – No. Govern by proposing what? Isolating Brazil’s economy from the rest of the world? Increasing the activity of the State? Maintaining privileges ? It so happens that in Brazil the segment that claims to be progressive has ended up defending backwardness. A sort of myth has grown up around the State. The State, at least according to the left’s theory which used to propound the existence of the class struggle, was seen as the expression of the dominant forces. In our case, it was also the expression of authoritarianism — and not just military authoritarianism. Our State was formed within an authoritarian framework, which is why it has incorporated certain groups and not others. I have always said we don’t have a Social Welfare State but a State in which people fare quite badly, not well. To defend such a State is to defend a State of Social Malaise – a State which impedes generalized access to education or health care, a State which provides sumptuous pensions to some and pittances to others. Most pathetic is the fact that those segments which like to think of themselves as progressive have joined forces with the most backward groups in Congress to block any change. And then they go on to accuse the Government of being linked to the backward groups! It’s all topsy-turvy. If we examine the vote on each issue in Congress, we see that the left – the "Left" in quotes, or what one calls the left in Brazil – voted against the Fund for the Promotion of Teachers, for example. Why? What is the underlying logic here? It’s the logic of petty politics. They want to destroy me but they hurt the country instead.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – I do. Let me explain. And this is where Gramsci comes in again. Gramsci used to say, "Social Democracy has the same root as Leninism, via the State. Today we have to think in terms of a new social democracy — one that does not speak the language of closed corporatist groupings, or the language of a state bureaucracy, or any language that strikes against the interests of civil society. What does that mean, in practice? First, if market forces are going to take over many sectors of production, then we must regulate. And regulate in such a way as to ensure that society will be a part of the regulatory effort. We need to concentrate obsessively on the universalization of services and public policies....

Veja – What does "the universalization of services and public policies" mean?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – It means meeting the needs of the greatest possible number of people. One cannot confuse democracy with the protection of certain closed corporatist groupings. Very often when something is supposedly said on behalf of the people and democracy it is really being said on behalf of the interests of a single group. Of course it is legitimate to seek to protect the interests of individual groups, but that should never take the place of an obsessive struggle to ensure universalization. All this is very difficult, because people take up the banner of their own interests as if they were universal interests. And all this involves a struggle. When we say, "We need universal access to education," this includes breaking up those interest groups with deep roots in Congress, in mayors’ offices, in the teachers’ corporatist grouping. So it is in fact a struggle, but since this struggle is not being placed in an ideological perspective, as it should, then it seems like persecution. All of those who feel they are being harmed have joined ranks against the government. The only thing that unifies people today is the government – if you’re against it. When threatened, those who wish to hold on to their privileges protest by criticizing the government, which they claim is not doing its best by all. In fact it is just not furthering the interests of that particular privileged group.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – The problem of social democracy is its relationship with the State. Social democracy must reevaluate the notion that only the State can get things done. As far as the new social democrats are concerned, it is not the State that gets things done. It is also the State that gets things done. There has to be leeway in government so that non-government forces can also participate in political decision-making, in controlling and assessing policy. Let us say that a program is set up, say in the educational field – such as the distribution of televisions to 50,000 schools(33), which we in fact did. Once done, the program needs evaluation to see if it is working. However, it’s not a question of checking to make sure no one is carting the television off to his home. Of course, that too may happen and must be fought, but that’s not the point. The question is: What is the effect of the program on education? Is the program working? Public policies require constant evaluation and we are just not equipped to do so. Therefore others must collaborate, side by side with the government. Non-governmental organizations can step in, or the Congress – we need a plurality of types of oversight. A social democracy should include all of that. So in that sense of the word, I am indeed a social democrat.

Veja – Your view of a social democracy includes a strong emphasis on the efforts of society at large in opposition to those of the State, a regulatory role, a role as a channel to guarantee universal access.... In partisan terms, what might the opposition be like? What party might oppose such views, for example, on behalf of the right?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – The right prefers a direct relationship with the State, although they talk about the market – but what right are you talking about ? I ask myself that: Who is on the right?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – We don’t have any real right-wing thought here....

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – I don’t want to become personal, but look: there are some practices that are inconsistent with forward-thinking views. What might those practices be? Confusing the public and the private spheres. The major problem afflicting our conservative thought is that it is rooted in "patrimonialism" , which confuses the public and private spheres. As the President I don’t think it would be proper to quote specific examples, but in Brazil we have people who range from those whom I consider to be legally incapacitated – because they don’t know what they’re doing and can’t even perceive the separation between the public and private spheres, like the feudal overlords in rural districts — to those who are more sophisticated, using the most advanced means for their corruption. Our conservatives are shot through and through with opportunism. What Sérgio Buarque de Holanda used to call backwardness in Brazil is opportunism. And in the most perverse sense of the word, not in the normal sense of handing out positions in government to those who support you – that is Weber – but in the perverse sense of using those jobs for your special interest groups, or for personal purposes, or to benefit your family. There are two issues I haven’t mentioned, which I feel are key when considering democratic radicalization, in other words, the new left: violence and corruption. These are not classic themes in the thought of the left. To the contrary, such themes were considered to be petty bourgeois moralism. Today violence is on the agenda of insecurity for the contemporary world. There is no violence because one is poor; violence is much broader than that. The topic of drugs, together with the topic of violence, is an issue of contemporary insecurity which has not been made political – and yet it must be. Not politicized in the worst sense of the word – but politicized in the sense of being placed on the public agenda.

Veja – What does being right-wing or left-wing mean? Does that make sense?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – It makes sense if the main thrust of what we’re saying is progressive thought or forward-thinking versus conservative backwardness, and as long as progressive thought is understood to mean defending the radicalization of democracy, the universalization of access to social and economic goods, etc. What is really under discussion? Why is the left being questioned? The left is being questioned because in the past it felt that the crux of the matter was the need to change control over production. To the degree that the victorious left or real socialism in the Soviet Union and then later in China nationalized the means of production, the left took on this statist face. Then the left became impregnated with the notion that the main thrust should be just that — an enlightened State bureaucracy. This notion began progressively to take the place of the notion of the class which according to Marxism was meant to liberate humankind. Such a global view included equality, but as the consequence of a form of appropriation. Today no one has a proposal for a consistent model for the organization of production under State control. That’s what the crisis of the left is all about. And it’s contagious, affecting social democracy and the PSDB(34), too. Today the question being asked is: is expropriation worthwhile? The only people who still uphold this idea are those who favor land reform, because they still feel that the breakup of property is the key to social wellbeing. And that makes sense, because they’re dealing with a 19th century problem. As far as all the other issues are concerned, new solutions are necessary. Those are the reforms that I have been concentrating on. The other day someone told me about a poster that said, "No reforms except agrarian reform". The poster was signed by the CUT(35). Do you see what I mean? A left which opposes reforms. Which does not think in terms of transformations. Therefore, it’s not a left. I represent the left.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – They, who call themselves the left, "left" in quotation marks, are tied to the State and don’t want the State to suffer any reforms. But in so doing they condemn the State to death, because society will not stand still. You cannot hold down the forces of progress within a society. Instead the State itself will come to a halt. What happens in so many states in Brazil today? They spend all their revenues on payrolls and social security and the little that is left on interest payments. And the "left" doesn’t want to approve the very reforms that would provide the state governments with the means by which to recover. This "left" doesn’t think. It’s biting its own tail. It won’t allow the State to be set free. And the "left" says it opposes neoliberalism. In fact, it is laying the foundation for the future existence of neoliberalism, because the State is going to go bankrupt and only the market will be left. Which means that, in practical terms, the "left" is actually neoliberal. It’s pathetic! It’s a paradox! If anyone belongs to the left, it is I, since I follow a line that espouses changes and reform. They’re the neoliberals. I am a soldier in the struggle against de facto liberalism.

Veja — What does being a president mean, today? What can a president do, and not do?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — Presidential responsibilities have undergone a renewal. Or rather, those of Chiefs of State and Heads of Government in general, including kings and prime-ministers, throughout the world. Such renewal is a requirement in today’s world with its mass societies and mass media. To begin with one must ask what happens to the parties. They still represent society, but only in a fragmentary fashion. Their propositions no longer encompass global concerns. They do manage to rally those with shared interests, which I find legitimate but insufficient. They should be capable of rallying people around shared values, yet rarely do so. This brings us back to the problem of the crisis of the left. I want ideology. To the contrary of Fukuyama, I am most anxious to have ideologies, or in other words: values. To the degree that the old values have lost their validity in the left without being replaced by new values, we have been left the poorer. We have no ideological foundation. Without any ideology, without up-to-date values, parties are not capable of coming up with proposals which will be valid for all of society. So then, what happens? The role of the President stands out. The President is forced to rally people symbolically — to a degree that is not really reasonable — and to present and represent values to society. Why was I elected to be President? Because I, or my candidacy, or what my candidacy represented, aggregated a number of values which constituted an alternative. That is the real reason. To carry out this role properly, this responsibility to rally people, one must be...how can I put it?....convincing, persuasive.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – Convince society that it is headed somewhere. Why am I giving you this interview? Because I think it is one of my responsibilities. It’s not that I’m trying to convince the voters. That isn’t how it works. But I have to let people know that I am headed somewhere. That is not the type of power which seeks control: it’s symbolic, but it is important – and it is a type of power. Even the most concrete type of power, the power to impose one’s will, is never as great as it might be unless it is linked to the power of persuasion. So the President’s power is a variable type of geometry. If you put someone in the presidential chair who cannot persuade others, then he will have much less power.

Veja – You’re talking about a type of power which is educational, almost virtual. And what about real, traditional power, the power to issue orders, to fire and hire people?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso — I abhor that. That kind of power is part of the past; it’s a power that does not persuade, that involves no cultural hegemony, as Gramsci would say. In fact it’s the power of the conservative. The power of the conservative comes from ties to special interests and from patronage. In a country such as ours we can no longer put up with a president who draws his power from such sources. It is petty, much too petty. I have power, but we must qualify that power. Traditional power, for example that of a president, is insignificant compared to what it once was, and it tends to decrease. It is limited by Congress, the courts, public opinion and the bureaucracy. I can’t just say, "I want this or that to happen" and then think that it will happen. Almost no one says "no" outright to a president of the Republic, yet there is passive resistance. Silent bureaucratic resistance, or else legal obstacles, or the blockade mounted by using technical means....But the president does hold a privileged position in the political system. Or rather: in the cultural-socio-political system. The president has ample access to society, via the mass media. So there is this other side of power – a side which is virtual but which nevertheless is enormously important.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – I pay a lot of attention to this question; I’ve read a great deal about Clinton and Mitterand. Clinton is very good at carrying out the responsibilities I’ve described. Mitterand was equally good, but in a "majestic and silent" way, very much the De Gaulle type of model. In Brazil people sometimes want to force me to be the same, but I just can’t; our cultures are too different. Can you see me trying to be majestic and silent? I would fail. They’ve already criticized me because I’m always giving speeches or interviews. The only ones that can stand silently and majestically by, despite today’s situation in Brazil, are those who belong to the right, because the right’s power does not depend on the word but on the pen. Another person I find admirable is Felipe Gonzalez. What did he do? He rallied people around values constantly: he spoke out, he took a stand, he shattered ....

Veja – Despite your famous good humor, it has been noted that your comments lately, including this interview, seem to be permeated with the complaint that you feel misunderstood....

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – Not bitter. Irritated, perhaps. And I’ll tell you why: I can’t believe people don’t see; it just isn’t possible. I simply cannot believe they don’t see that without the reforms I mentioned they are strangling the State. And reducing the possibility of universal access to society’s assets. Everyone is talking and no one is listening. I don’t want to deal in generalities, though. My dialogue with Congress is intense and constant, for example. But....Can’t people see what is happening throughout the world? Don’t they at least see what I’m trying to do?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – No. Of course everyone would love to be understood by everyone else, but that’s not the point. I would like the intelligent people to understand. There are so many intelligent people with blinders on.... It’s incomprehensible. I see former colleagues of mine from the university writing such senseless drivel, with such pomp and precious academicism that I no longer have the patience to read on. My complaints about being misunderstood aren’t about everyone in general. I can’t complain about our nation. I can’t complain about the people. We are controlling all our expenditures strictly, I haven’t given anyone a raise yet, and yet I still enjoy the people’s support. Even the Congress – it approves the Administration’s programs, one way or another. My complaint regarding lack of understanding is aimed at those who should understand. Those in the more academic circles, in the vanguard of politics. It is to them that I say, "It cannot be!" Although I do also understand that things happen that way because people don’t want to give up their beliefs. The world changes and they want to hold on to their old views. Wasn’t it Marx who said that awareness always comes later? My complaint is that it’s taking too long.

Veja – We began this interview with a reference to Brazil’s independence day, the 7th of September, and we would like to end on a similar note, but this time by looking at the past. If you look back at the 175 years since independence, do you think Brazil has done a satisfactory job?

Fernando Henrique Cardoso – Objectively speaking, I do. Japan may be the only country that has grown and changed as much as Brazil during the same period. Angus Maddison, from England, wrote a study showing just that. Of course, if you’re talking about social integration, we certainly have not done a satisfactory job, nor in terms of inclusion, nor equality, certainly not. The well-known "social debt" is still there. And at this point, once again, the left has a responsibility and some force. In a country with the degree of inequality that we find in Brazil, a left-wing is necessary, as long as it is modern, as long as it moves things forward. Because solidarity, solidarity as a value, is indispensable. It’s quite interesting to see how broadly the word "community" is used today, even in situations in which it is not, in strict sociological terms, really appropriate. The feeling of community, of going through the same situation together, is highly valued in today’s world. The difference isn’t really objective, and it’s not so much a question of whether or not one is rich or poor, but instead a question of having experienced the same situation, which means people have something in common, they share a feeling of commonality, and those are ties that bind. When people talk about the concept of "community" that is what they mean: sharing the same experience, being together. And this feeling of being together is the indispensable mortar of the contemporary world. And that is one of the values upheld by the left. Conservatives don’t want to do things together. Conservatives solve things all by themselves. They don’t enter into a dialogue; they don’t share the same experiences as others. There are so many new values which we can insist on as indicators of progress. And a great many things would fit in here, including a new humanism. The world of globalization is many things at the same time: the confused jumble of international money, the homogenization of production, the fragmentation – and it is also a world that places humankind at the fore again, because it brings up issues that affect us all. There are so many good, new and challenging things happening that it saddens me to see how tightly people cling to their ... what have I called it? ... their "nhenhenhém"(36), wasn’t that what I said?

SECOM

Publicações

Contents

8- The Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science	Voltar ao texto
9- TN: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker and presidential candidate who heads the Worker´s Party	Voltar ao texto
10- TN: Golbery do Couto e Silva, a minister and a key ideologue during the military regime	Voltar ao texto
11- Samuel Huntington, American historian and Havard professor	Voltar ao texto
12- TN: The period of political decompression was the carefully planned transition from the military dictatorship to democracy, between 1974 and 1984	Voltar ao texto
13- TN: A massive popular campaign in 1984 demanding immediate elections	Voltar ao texto
14- TN: President Collor was impeached for influence-peddling in 1992	Voltar ao texto
15- TN: President Collor was impeached for influence-peddling in 1992	Voltar ao texto
16- Bank of International Settlements	Voltar ao texto
17- TN: The MST is the Landless People's Movement, a group which fights for land reform and government-aided agricultural settlement	Voltar ao texto
18- TN: Pronaf is an acronym which stands for the National Family Agriculture Program	Voltar ao texto
19- TN: Brasilia was carved out of the state of Goiás	Voltar ao texto
20- Darcy Ribeiro: recently deceased anthropologist, educator, writer and politician who wrote The Brazilian People	Voltar ao texto
21- Gilberto Freyre: renowned sociologist who wrote a famous book called The Plantation House and the Slave Quarters	Voltar ao texto
22- TN: Zumbi was a runaway slave and warrior who helped to build up a small black nation-state within Brasil which lasted for almost two centuries	Voltar ao texto
23- TN: Roberto Freire, a member of Congress, is a former communist and the head of a small left-wing party	Voltar ao texto
24- TN: Four young men threw alcohol on a sleeping Pataxó Indian and set him on fire "as a joke". Although he died, the judge dealt very leniently with the culprits	Voltar ao texto
25- TN: Thousands of people who had bought apartments from the Encol Construction Company lost their investments	Voltar ao texto
26- PFL: Liberal Front Party	Voltar ao texto
27- PPB: Brazilian Popular Party	Voltar ao texto
28- TN: Betinho is the late sociologist who founded Brazil's first major grass-roots movement to combat hunger	Voltar ao texto
29- The PT- the Worker's Party	Voltar ao texto
30- PSOE: Spanish Socialist Worker's Party	Voltar ao texto
31- The Vale do Rio Doce, a huge mining concern, was recently privatized	Voltar ao texto
32- TN: Proer is the government program to restructure the banking and finance systems in Brazil	Voltar ao texto
33- TN: Televisions and satellite dishes were distributed for distance education purposes	Voltar ao texto
34- PSDB: Brasilian Social Democratic Party	Voltar ao texto
35- TN: The CUT is a Federation of Trade Unions	Voltar ao texto
36- TN: Slang for querulous whining	Voltar ao texto