With
all due respect, the insistence of a few “smart guys” is unreasonable in
submitting Jair Bolsonaro to a psychiatric examination, with a view to his
rapid, convenient and politically ‘cheap” removal from the presidency of the
republic without any need for impeachment.
It is
one thing to disagree with the words and attitudes of a combative,
argumentative president of a strictly military background, of limited general,
legal and literary culture and who is much too frank, even “coarse”, but who
was and still is supported by millions of Brazilians who will probably not turn
a blind eye to his easy removal based on suspicions raised via “psychiatry”. They
will say: — “If Bolsonaro is “crazy”, then we are too, because we think and
feel the same way!”
As
in the case of all sciences, psychiatry seeks to evolve, but due to the fact
that it works with the brain, our most complex organ — much more complex than
the liver or kidneys, for example — it is very likely subject to mistakes and
slip-ups in its procedures.
One
of these blunders would be a psychiatric report, produced for clearly political
reasons, stating that the person investigated is mentally incapable of
fulfilling his mandate. If he is insane, then there are dozens and dozens of
individuals who are just as insane, or even worse than him, throughout the
country. It would be necessary to examine more than one hundred people
suspected of being “soft in the head”. Many of them crazy for taxpayers’ money.
Others, crazy for transforming draft bills, submitted by the Executive Branch —
with a view to “cracking down” on criminality — into laws with the opposite
effect that are only going to create further obstacles in the fight against
white-collar criminals.
In
the past, patients suffered from painful electric shock treatment of dubious
effectiveness. One of them even stated that it would be possible to illuminate
a medium-sized town with the amount of electricity that had gone through his
head.
When
they did not die from lobotomies or leucotomies, aggressive schizophrenics
became “docile” and passive, but with intellectual defects. As far as I know,
and I am not a doctor, these two forms of surgical treatment are no longer in
use and brain science continues to be full of uncertainty. The blame does not
lie with practitioners, but with the complex nature of their object of study.
For
this reason, a diagnosis regarding the mental sanity of the acts of a president
of the republic, at a very difficult time for the country — and, indeed, the
rest of the world — will be seen, quite rightly, as a “coup”, even if the
psychiatrists that examine him are mentally honest.
The
risk of any bad faith in removing Bolsonaro for reasons of mental illness will
not lie with the physician, but the politician or lawyer responsible for
selecting the members of the medical committee. Once with a list of
psychiatrists, ensuring he is alone with each one, he will ask — requiring
simply “yes” or “no” as an answer — whether Bolsonaro is “half-crazy or
abnormal, incapable of continuing to govern”.
Based
on the political preference of the physician, asked unexpectedly, if he says
“yes”, he will be included on the list of possible members of the medical
committee. If he says “no”, or “I have not yet made up my mind ...”, his name
will be removed without him even knowing. With this selection of prior,
extremely subjective political opinions, it would be easy to remove any
president of the republic.
Bolsonaro
is really reckless and rude when he speaks, in an improvised manner, but his
voters prefer a sincere president with an honest past, instead of lying
politicians, who are truly walking collections of hackneyed phrases defending
the “legitimate rights of citizenship”, but not averse to pocketing, as “intermediaries”,
a variable percentage in all high-value government business dealings.
It
is possible, and desirable, that Bolsonaro soon correct his naive frankness — pondering
the terrible consequences of sincerity — and avoid speaking in an improvised
manner on sensitive issues, remembering that his enemies — experts in hiding
their real intentions — use “opportune silence” as a “weapon”, a more effective
tactic than impulsive sincerity. Viewing silence as a “weapon”, or combat
technique, perhaps the president, as an ex-soldier, feels more highly motivated
to utilize the useful side of silence. Many politicians have been successful
and resilient because they cultivated the “art of remaining silent” when this was better than
speaking. Silence is a great blanket. Getúlio Vargas was a master in this. Luís
Carlos Prestes, an extremely intelligent communist, always the top of his class
in mathematics, ruined his future when, during an interview — asked about which
side he would take if there were a war between Russia and Brazil — he replied
that he would support Russia. This was his downfall.
In
general, the oral communication of a military man is harsher, more direct, than
that of a professional politician. Napoleon Bonaparte, a military man of
exceptional intelligence, a great statesman, was also excessively frank, although
brilliant. For example, he said that Constitutions “should be short and obscure”,
a phrase that would currently lead to a bout of fainting on the part of
respected constitutionalists and ministers of the Supreme Court. With regard to
religion, he said that it was useful because “it prevented the poor from
killing the rich”. Referring to his ex-minister of foreign affairs,
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand — an educated politician who later became his
adversary — he said that “Talleyrand is shit in a silk stocking” (begging your
indulgence).
Psychiatry,
given the elasticity and uncertainty of its limits, still makes it possible to
recognize or “invent” anyone as “sick” with ideas or attitudes that go against
majorities, minorities, governments, other psychiatrists or whoever chose them
to examine a political enemy. In this case, it is clear that the enemy would be
the current president.
There
are historical precedents.
When
the Soviet Union had Leonid Brezhnev as its General Secretary, Russian
psychiatry used and abused the ruse of recognizing anyone who disagreed with
official policy as “sick”. The psychiatrist, chosen by him, would recognize the
opponent as suffering from “philosophical intoxication”, or “progressive
schizophrenia” — a commissioned scientific innovation — and this was sufficient
for the stubborn wretch to be “interned” for an indefinite period of time.
It
was a way of silencing a dissident without having to kill him, as in the time
of Stalin. This “Father of Nations” was very much more direct and virulent than
his successors, as he physically eliminated his adversaries — taken from their
homes, in the middle of the night — without being worried about the opinion of
the public, which could not even have an opinion as there was no free press. When
Stalin realized that his political future was at risk, he used his highest
court to first “judge” his ex-comrades of the Revolution as “traitors”. Then he
executed them. In order to facilitate rapid judgment, the accused were tortured
or blackmailed into “confessing” their crimes. Fearing death and also thinking
of his family, the dissident perhaps “confessed” with some hope of remaining
alive. Vain hope. From the reports I have read, he killed them all, without
exception. If you would like to learn more concerning this topic, just read
about “The Moscow Show Trials” (1936-1938), during the Great Purge. This small
digression shows that political dissidents can be removed not only by psychiatric
reports, but also by magistrates.
In
the case of Bolsonaro — the mass of voters thought — his misfortune, suffering
stab wounds, was not solely moral. It was also physical, with a risk of death
and likely planned. Not only by the perpetrator, someone called Bispo who,
rather than being crazy, seems to only be a lucid fanatic who carefully planned
everything and was able to count on legal assistance soon after his arrest. If Bispo
is crazy, then Marat, Danton, Robespierre (guillotine), Hitler, Lenin, Stalin,
Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, etc. would also be crazy, because they killed
hundreds of millions of opponents for reasons that we consider to be cruel and
inhumane, but not indicative of insanity.
Finally,
there is no solid basis for removing Bolsonaro from power before the end of his
mandate, something that would delight many people eager to occupy his place. I
voted for him as a means of preventing the return of politicians with a greater
number of flaws in administering handling taxpayers’ money. At present, his
enemies are united and smiling, but, on attaining their objective, they will
devour each other with exemplary ferocity.
With
regard to the mediocre and encouraged “dispute of comrades” between Moro and
Bolsonaro, this rupture between two people who will still be very useful to the
country was organized and motivated by politicians, magistrates and the media,
who wished to put an end to the Lava Jato corruption investigation and administer
the Republic in their own preferred manner. It is my hope that, in the not too
distant future, Moro and Bolsonaro — each with their own specialty — will work
together in cooperation. One with his competence as a magistrate, the other
with his courage to fight with great bravery. The latter perfected with the
virtue of the right silence at the right moment.
(This article was written in
Portuguese and translated by John Upson. Francisco Cesar Pinheiro Rodrigues is
a Brazilian writer, retired judge, resident in São Paulo, Brazil, with several
published books. He wrote more than 200 articles, on the most varied subjects,
which can be read, in Portuguese, on blog "francepiro.blogspot.com"
and on the website www.500toques.com.br. His e-mail is oripec@terra.com.br
(14/05/2020)
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário