Guest Post: Criticism with Love

One of the things that most irritates Brazilians is criticism from foreigners, something I've written about extensively and something that every foreigner in Brazil will always encounter. While suspicion of foreign intervention and dislike of foreign criticism is deeply ingrained, and while it has become something of a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss the "gringo metido," I always like to stress that there is a big difference in where the criticism is coming from. If it's from someone who knows almost nothing about Brazil, the kind of person who says, "Brazil will never be ready for the World Cup," or "Brazil is really dangerous," without any kind of actual facts or infomration to back them up, then irritation is certainly warranted. But when criticism comes from someone who knows a lot about Brazil, someone who lives or lived there and actively follows current events and geniunely loves the country as if it was his or her own, it's another story. We have a lot to say because we care, and we feel a vested interest in seeing positive change. Such is the case with me, but also with many of my gringo readers.

One reader is Adam, a former missionary and jack of all trades who spent several years living in Brazil, whose dream is to move back and work on social development projects. He wrote an interesting piece in his blog, Igneous Quill, that I think is not only very astute, but a perfect example of someone who genuinely seeks solutions for a place he loves. He was kind enough to let me share it, so here it is.

What Keeps Brazil Back - Adam Gonnerman

The few years I lived in Brazil were both wonderful and frustrating. Wonderful because of the people I was with and the experiences we shared, frustrating because of the systemic problems that put a drag on the ability of people to get ahead in life.  By the time I left Brazil and began my exile of sorts here in the United States I had distilled my explanation of Brazil’s systemic failure down to three points: centralism, collectivism and positivism.  Despite Brazil being one of the “BRIC” nations and considered an emerging economy, this nation has a lot of reform to do before its true potential can be released. And by “reform” I mean “simplication.”

First, there’s centralism. The entire tax structure of Brazil is centralized. It’s actually called a “tribute system,” and municipal and state taxes are collected and funneled to the national capital, Brasilia. Control of so much money concentrated in one place assures that there will me massive corruption. The Brazilian federal government is unarguably too big, with far too many employees on the payroll.  Most of these keep their full pay and benefits after retirement. It has been argued that such a tribute system is necessary to sustain the poorer states, and that Rio and Sao Paulo serve as the “economic engines” of the country. I say, drop the excessive and unnecessary rules and you’ll see people in those poorer states put their creativity to good work.

Read the rest of the post after the jump.

Second, collectivism is a key part of the tangled mess that is Brazil. There is a mentality present in Brazil that’s what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine too. The government, on all levels, is too quick to tax and regulate, and citizens are too accepting of “benefits” that came at the expense of others (through taxation and fees). If you own a car in Brazil, expect a massive chunk of your annual income to go towards paying taxes for the privilege of owning it. If you run a business, or even a church, expect to pay not only property taxes (some few of these can be exempted for non-profit religious organizations and others) but also a fee for having any type of signage on the building. Brazilian phone bills have not only taxes, but also taxes on the taxes!  People gripe about how much the government takes, but no one would dare suggest the government should lay off large portions of its overall staff and reorganize for greater efficiency. And, again, everyone’s more than happy to take the government’s hand-outs and sub-standard “free” health care.

Third, there’s positivism. You’ve likely never heard of this one, and it doesn’t involve being optimistic. It’s a philosophical perspective that idealizes having an elite rank of technocrats micromanaging the country for the greater good of all. According to some accounts it’s the source of “Ordem e Progresso” (Order and Progress) on the nation’s flag, and almost certainly it supports the overactive national legislature’s “work.” The nation’s Constitution is amended on a regular basis, and almost all legal codes are federal…even the traffic code (as though road conditions in rural Amazonia were anything like downtown Sao Paulo). This characteristic, combined at times with centralism, is sometimes also described as “paternalism.” People end up continuously looking to the government for solutions, thereby further empowering an already overbearing power structure.

The people I knew and spent time with in Brazil, and most of the Brazilian immigrants I’ve met in the United States, are hard-working, incredibly creative people. No strangers to hard times, I’ve seen mothers of families spend a little change on a few ingredients and go door-to-door selling chocolate-covered strawberries, making extra cash to pay a bill or buy groceries.  In downtown Uberlandia I often saw a man set up on a street corner, fixing umbrellas (we Americans just throw them away and buy new ones). Don’t tell me the Brazilian people lack creativity and drive. What hold them back, for the most part, is the system that promises them everything and yet works against them.

It may seem strange to some that have heard about Brazil’s “booming” economy that I’m aiming to move back to Brazil to work with poor and at-risk youth, teaching them useful tech skills while also working with the community to improve conditions. If Brazil’s doing so well, why bother? Simply put, for all the reasons I gave above. As Brazil rises internationally, many hundreds of thousands remain in poverty, not for lack of ambition, but for lack of access and opportunity. Though I can’t help thousands, perhaps over the course of time something can be done for hundreds.

There are a couple articles I find interesting and helpful for understanding Brazil. One, dealing with positivism, is The Ghost That Haunts Brazil. Though published in 2002 (ancient by Internet standards) it shed a lot of light on the situation for me during my first sojourn in Brazil, and still stands an accurate explanation. The other is far more recent, entitled The Brazilian Model. Here’s one gem from this latter article: “Yet Brazil suffers from two huge blocks to growth: red tape and gaping inequality. For all its recent commitment to liberalisation the Brazilian government is still a rule-spewing, incumbent-protecting monster.”

Brazil faces major challenges, and I by no means can solve even a fraction of them. If I can help at least a few lead better lives and bootstrap themselves out of poverty, that will be success for me.

Original post on Igneous Quill

Comments

[Ian]

Although I've not been to Brazil, I'm inclined to ascribe Brazil's social and economic difficulties to two additional factors: Catholicism and Racism. As everywhere it's entrenched, the Catholic Church siphons funds and effort that could be profitably used for collective betterment, while instilling superstition, fatalism, authoritarianism and self-defeating mores. For example, consider how the Vatican's proscription of contraceptives disenfranchise Latin American women by locking them into the role of Child Breeder, preventing many from pursuing professional careers and perpetuating poverty among their offspring. The ban is also doubtless responsible the AIDS epidemic decimating the flavelas, which also serves to perpetuate indolence, in this case by crippling or killing many of the robust young.

Brazil's endemic racism of course bars millions of Blacks, Indians and Pardos from full participation in society, again perpetuating poverty and stagnation.

[Rafael]

What's the problem with positivism?

Americans tend to see as wrong any approach to development that differs from theirs. Since they're successful as a nation -- and still the most successful in spite of the current crisis -- they tend to think there's only one path to national progress: their own. I've seen so many American who are prone to lecture others -- and I'm not talking of particularly learned Americans -- about what kinds of reforms (social, political, fiscal, educational, you name it) a foreign nation ought to implement to cure whatever ailments it might suffer from. The fact, however, is that many countries, successful countries, have done things differently from what the US has preached. State bureaucracies to regulate private enterprises' activity figure prominently in Japan and South Korea. And let's not forget this: during the most successful period in Brazilian economic history (from the late 60s to 1980) state technocrats were even more powerful and more meddling than they are now. Late industrializion countries, like the ones of East Asia, have relied on government activism and central planning to lead them to development. And that includes China. By now, almost everyone in the world agrees that Chinese economy is more solid than the US's. Even Thomas Friedman, an open markets ideologue, thinks so; he is on record saying he wished US economics decision-making was as rational as China's. Perhaps departing a bit from its laissez-faire, anti-planning, let-the-Wall-Street-boys-do-all-for-themselves model would be of help.

[Lya]

@ Ian
I don't think Catholicism has a great influence on Brazilian people's lives anymore. Although it is the biggest catholic country, Brazilian people are not very strict catholics. If women and men don't take contraceptives or use condoms is because their lack of knowledge, not because the church said so. The church has some influence over the government for greater issues, such as abortion. But as for the racism part I agree with you.

[The Gritty Poet]

@ Rafael

"And let's not forget this: during the most successful period in Brazilian economic history (from the late 60s to 1980) state technocrats were even more powerful and more meddling than they are now"

One thing you did forget to mention is the hyperinflation which crippled Brazil for almost two decades and resulted from the policies those brilliant state technocrats implemented. I should also remind you that Brazilian products in general are not of good quality and that can be attributed to a domestic market shielded from overseas competition. Education also plays a part in this: it is faulty and if Brazil had an aproach which emphasized K12 and technical training our work force would be so much better, but once again our wise overlords from the bureaucracy opted for a system that instead pours billions into state funded "public" universities which cater to those who can actually afford to pay for an education. Genius.
Unfortunetaly the people in charge are the main beneficiaries of such perks and hence those most likely to lose in the short run if Brazil were to drop this terrible positivistic mindset and pursued a more do it yourself, market friendly path which is better suited to the overwhelming part of the Brazilian populace due to their entrepreneurial spirit.
It is very sad that these people and their efforts are held hostage by those intitled few who can´t even notice that in the long run change would benefit them as well. These are our state planning visionaries.
As for Mr. Gonnerman adding his two cents to this topic what exactly is the problem? If his views make sense why is his origin relevant? Gonnerman likes Brazil, but does this even matter? I disagree with the notion that a person has to be sympathetic to a country to offer advice. If it is good who cares?
I personally welcome Gonnerman's views, perhaps because my self esteem will not be shattered if a foreigner has intelligent insight regarding my country.
Yet maybe he should change his name to Adão Gonomen, if it so pleases the general public. If this helps get his points across so be it: they are worth considering.

[bz]

It sounds like Adam is advocating swapping out a kleptocracy with socialist leaning tendencies for a government with more checks and balances that promotes deregulation of business, free market capitalism, the trimming of the welfare state and personal initiative. This sounds very much like something a conservative would suggest for America. Impressive!

First and foremost, I’d like to see the thievery of Brazil’s government end. We mustn’t forget that is the root of all of Brazil’s problems. That alone would be colossal. From there, it would be interesting to see how the country decides to manage its growth on its own terms. Another point to consider is that while abolition of the excesses of the welfare state sounds impressive for the United States, where many “poor” people own state of the art technology, and are out of work because they choose to leech off the government, Brazil faces the real challenge of moving forward while not totally abandoning all the TRULY down and out people its kleptocratic government has created. Finally, I think deregulation of trade and a loosening of immigration policies as Brazil booms could only help the country’s economy and job market grow faster.

[Rio Gringa]

@gritty poet I appreciate your attitude toward criticism! I guess I can sympathize with other Brazilians on this point though; it drives me nuts when people give opinions on things they have no facts about, whether it's a country or politics or scientific theories. One thing I've tried to do more as I get older is to shape a well-informed opinion before giving one. Adam is more than well-informed so I was happy to share this piece!

[Nicole]

@ Rafael

"And let's not forget this: during the most successful period in Brazilian economic history (from the late 60s to 1980) state technocrats were even more powerful and more meddling than they are now"

Don't forget that that was a period of military dictatorship, when thousands of people were thrown in jail or dissappeared because they sought to express their own thoughts.
Brazil fought a long time for liberty to prevail over economic progress and is quickly slipping back into a police state.

@Ian

Its the protestant church (particularly the Universal church and their public arm - Rede Record as well as the Assembly of God) that do what you are blaiming on the Catholics - tell people not to take birth control, condem the poor, encourage them to buy God's favor with large donations that end up in the pastors pocket, etc. etc.

A lot of the Catholic priests here are fairly liberal and have fought for decades on behalf of the poor. I attended an eccumenical meeting just this weekend and my Catholic priest spoke in a Macumba temple about the importance of respecting other religions.

Many Catholics here mix and match taking on spiritist viewpoints (either candomble, umbanda or cardicism) or mix it with budhism, methodism, etc. and the church is pretty tolerant. They've started health clinics in various neighborhood, included the poorer part of my own,and most of the "Catholic" volunteers preach birthcontrol, safe sex, family and financial planning, etc. They generally help syphen money from the richer parts to the poorer parts with a lot less corruption then the government.

Racism is a problem here, often masked as classism as classism is often masked as racism in the US, preventing a debate about the real issues at heart. Its a really tough problem to handle in a country where you can declare your child's race at birth as whatever you want. "Regionalism" where white people from the South are automitically assumed to be cultured and successful and people from the Northeast are often judge as dumb, dirty, poor and unable to stop breeding is an even bigger part of this that is difficult to unwind.

[Carlos Almeyda]

The americans giving hunch on issues about other countries is very funny. They only know their own country, nothing else.

WHAT THE AMERICANS SPEAK, DO OTHERWISE, YOU WILL SUCCEED.

[The Gritty Poet]

@ Nicole

I think you should try to find data concerning patterns in living standards of Evangelicals and Catholics of similar income level.
A while back, a few years ago actually, I read a paper which demonstrated via statistics that poor Evangelicals move up the economic latter faster than their Catholic counterparts. This ,according to the research, is due to lower birth rates among poor Evangelicals and harsh preaching against behavior such as alcohol abuse and divorce. These things, albeit present in society in general, produce consequences that are specially detrimental on those who have less and greatly hinder their children.
I tried to find the paper online but the author's name escapes me. I do remember first reading about her in Veja magazine many years ago.
Are you sure that Evangelicals preach against birth control? They seem to be much more open minded when it comes to condoms and the pill. Perhaps you are mixing that up with abortion which tends to be frowned upon by Catholics and Protestants alike.
By the way I am Roman Catholic, I am not writting this to endorse a specific denomination. It just seems to me that the data for the statement you made isn't out there.