How the important act of political expression has become a tug-of-war between the Brazilian left and right
It can be seen around the world that polarisation has become the way of life (modus vivendi) of much of the political militancy. In some places, as in Germany, far-right groups have taken to the streets to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with government measures, but also to revive anti-Semitic, xenophobic, anti-Europeanist, in short, anti-establishment hatred.
In other places, such as Brazil, the social networks have been the stage for political fights of a good part of the militancy. In times of pandemic, one side of the debate monopolised the streets for a while – harassing those on the other side it encountered – only to be confronted violently after months of silence from its political opponents. Thus, the biggest “confrontations” have taken place on online platforms which, only recently, have started to try to control the hate content published trying to masquerade as “freedom of expression”. It is, however, in these environments theoretically free of rules that a phenomenon of “tug-of-war” has begun to take place – on both sides.
Driven by the immediatist phenomena that the speed and the saturation of new information made possible by the Internet have promoted, political polarization reaches its peak. It is a fact that, as Chaia and Brugnago (2015) remind us, quoting Bobbio, polarization always occurs through a dyad, and for one side to exist, it necessarily needs its opponent. Thus, it is normal that, in an environment of political polarization, opposites are created so that they can fight each other – and, perhaps, destroy each other.
But the social networks have given political polarisation an extra element of levity. It is not new knowledge that portals like Facebook and Twitter are environments for the proliferation of antagonistic positions. In a 2011 study by Conover et al, it was observed that Twitter users in the US tended to create bubbles of antagonistic political position. The authors analysed the universes of retweets (when someone shares the messages that another person posted) and mentions (when someone uses a hashtag (#) to express their opinion on a topic being discussed on the network).
It was found that the universe of retweets was very homogeneous, proving that people tend to share only information that reinforces their opinion or that of their political affinity. The universe of mentions, however, proved to be heterogeneous – being that people from right and left could see opinions from the other political field, even interacting with these people when using hashtags. This interaction, however, the authors conclude, does not override the polarization that persists “despite the substantial inter-ideological interaction” (CONOVER et al., 2011, p. 95).
Social networks have gained much more space in the last decade, becoming the pivot of accusations of interference in democracy in large countries like Britain, Germany and the USA. In Brazil, the movement was no different. But instead of looking at the illicit actions perpetrated by politicians on the networks to undermine democracy, here the focus is different: militancy.
With the polarization between “coxinhas” (right-wing supporters) and “petralhas” (left-wing supporters – mainly supporters of the Workers’ Party) after the protests of June 2013, it is possible to “really say that the duality of left and right was reborn in Brazil stronger than ever” (CHAIA; BRUGNAGO, 2015). The need of the two poles to differentiate themselves from the other has gradually increased to the point that, today, many do not even bother to represent a strong opposition to the opponent.
In the midst of the pandemic, any subject that came up automatically became polarised. Quarantine, total closure, the use of masks, chloroquine. In these cases, it is still possible to maintain a level of reasonableness when one automatically sets oneself against the actions of the government and its militancy that are extremely anti-scientific. The question of being for or against some of these points is as difficult as choosing a side in the “debate” on the shape of the Earth. The left, on the whole, stood by robust studies, methods and science, while the right-wing base of the government relied on WhatsApp and Facebook “facts”.
Within the debates on the pandemic, however, it is possible to observe other points where the left equals the right in the field of irrationality and automatic opposition. Two examples can be used: the position towards China (the place where the pandemic started) and Russia (the first place where a vaccine was registered).
In response to the addressed xenophobia typical of the Bolsonarist camp, many in the opposition rightly went against gratuitous hatred of the Chinese. The defence, however, extended to the political camp. China, while officially a communist country, is already the target of Bolsonaro’s “friend” hatred north of Brazil. The tug-of-war is made, however, when those who go against the gratuitous right-wing attacks, try to defend at all costs the Chinese Communist Party which, according to reports, did try to hide the disease. One closes one’s eyes to the questionable attitudes of the Beijing government and goes to an argument of “the USA also hid the Spanish flu” which would be the equivalent of the left during the pandemic to the Bolsonarist excuse of “the Workers’ Party did worse”.
In the case of Russia, to the distrust (not only on the part of Bolsonarists) in relation to the new vaccine, the tug-of-war came about in the automatic defence of the Putin regime, ignoring the fact of the secrecy surrounding the pioneering release of the medicine.
It is important to stress that, far from being condemnable, wanting to stand against hatred and anti-scientificism is not only preferable but praiseworthy, since reliable information is one of the best weapons against ignorance (of all kinds, but especially political ignorance). However, one must be careful in the automatic opposition that, as the name advances, ends up being just a baseless fight.
An opinion on a subject, regardless of the area, is formed through access to information, reading, discussion and, finally, the adoption of a position. The blind adoption of a discourse is not only a power of attorney given to others to form their political position, but it has a devastating effect of deepening polarisation.
The more the poles radicalise, the more democracy suffers. Politics, made through compromises and concessions, gives way to ideological battles that do nothing to improve the country’s political situation, but on the contrary, aggravate it and make a solution more and more distant. There is no obligation to disagree with everything the political opponent says, nor to agree. At the moment when there is only disagreement, however, there are no longer opponents, but mortal enemies – where the existence of one is necessarily hostile to that of the other. Disagreement gives way to hatred and may lead to the dehumanization of the other, finally transforming the verbal clash into a physical one.
The idea is not to give up principles, allying oneself with those who prefer hatred to rationality. But to be based on facts, science and critical thinking. The herd movement is attractive, but misleading. By surrendering its conscience to the masses, the demos becomes ochlo. The people, becomes the mob. And the mob is manoeuvrable, since it is based on passion rather than reason.
Regardless of political sides, it is possible to sew alliances with people of critical thinking and, thus, strengthen the participatory regime, keeping the authoritarian spectrum away. Specially because, as Bobbio (1994, p. 25) stated, “revolutionary and counter-revolutionary authors, and their respective movements, have in common the belonging (…) to the extremist wing opposed to the moderate one”. Or, in other words, in extremism, the right and the left act side by side.
