There is a discourse of hatred, intolerance, disrespect
for peasoas, a mentality of infallibility and a divine right to power, a belief
in omnipotence, a commodification of politics and ethical values that must end. Taken to the extreme, they create and, as
Roberto Tibana says in another debate elsewhere, they harbor killers.
To waterproof Frelimo, or any other organization, against infiltration by murderers and psychopaths, against ambitious unscrupulous ones for those who are worth everything is all that counts, a great deal must be changed in discourse and practice, in ideas and culture. When tolerated strategy, tactics, language, mentality, and practice are war (crushing, squeezing, not giving space, destroying, governing a thousand years, enemies, traitors, etc.) the ground is being fertilized for ambitious psychopaths gaining prominence and power.
There is a text of a said prof, which, in the limit, makes the apology for the murder of the junior and his stepmother, even insinuating that the father of the Junior was murdered by his peers. The individual concerned is doing an ode to violence, hatred, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and extreme intolerance 4 years ago on behalf of Frelimo. He has already been protected from Guebuza and is now protected from Nyusi, probably in their absence. As you move up the rank of the organization, your speech gets worse and more and more out of control. It has been heavily criticized by many people, including many Frelimo members. The latest report comes in a post by Gabriel Muthisse, which I advise you to follow. But the organization, Frelimo, has never demarcated it until now, and it has established itself internally. Because? Are there any people who think that people of this kind are needed for certain jobs? Is this what, as Tibana says, creates the idea that Frelimo harbors murderers even if it is not an assassin organization?
To waterproof Frelimo, or any other organization, against infiltration by murderers and psychopaths, against ambitious unscrupulous ones for those who are worth everything is all that counts, a great deal must be changed in discourse and practice, in ideas and culture. When tolerated strategy, tactics, language, mentality, and practice are war (crushing, squeezing, not giving space, destroying, governing a thousand years, enemies, traitors, etc.) the ground is being fertilized for ambitious psychopaths gaining prominence and power.
There is a text of a said prof, which, in the limit, makes the apology for the murder of the junior and his stepmother, even insinuating that the father of the Junior was murdered by his peers. The individual concerned is doing an ode to violence, hatred, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and extreme intolerance 4 years ago on behalf of Frelimo. He has already been protected from Guebuza and is now protected from Nyusi, probably in their absence. As you move up the rank of the organization, your speech gets worse and more and more out of control. It has been heavily criticized by many people, including many Frelimo members. The latest report comes in a post by Gabriel Muthisse, which I advise you to follow. But the organization, Frelimo, has never demarcated it until now, and it has established itself internally. Because? Are there any people who think that people of this kind are needed for certain jobs? Is this what, as Tibana says, creates the idea that Frelimo harbors murderers even if it is not an assassin organization?
The complaint made by Gabriel Muthisse shows that the facts are known and some
people within Frelimo completely repudiate them. But so far, at least as far as
I know, Frelimo as an institution has not yet publicly demarcated these
speeches or instituted legal proceedings against the individuals concerned, who
even advocate the murder of Frelimo members. Is this evidence that there are
individuals in their midst who see no problem in the tactics of the whole
valley?
This discourse of appealing to hatred as a maximum manifestation of loyalty and power is present in politics and economy (for example, expropriation of lands, murder of its occupants, pushing families into informality and illegality, raping their wives, all in the name of progress and the great modernizing investment). Today it is a said teacher or a communicator who incites physical violence against a member who did not follow the internal discipline and decided, by his conscience and will, to create an electoral alternative. Tomorrow it is this member or other who incites, practices, lets practice or justifies extreme violence against peasant families who have the misfortune of dwelling upon valuable mineral resources. The day after tomorrow is a group that kidnaps and whips or beats an independent or oppositional analyst, or murders a jurist or other citizen because of his convictions. The next day is someone who disagrees with the constitutional order and shoots until it is heard, decentralized, demobilized and reintegrated, and given the power to name democratically.
This discourse of appealing to hatred as a maximum manifestation of loyalty and power is present in politics and economy (for example, expropriation of lands, murder of its occupants, pushing families into informality and illegality, raping their wives, all in the name of progress and the great modernizing investment). Today it is a said teacher or a communicator who incites physical violence against a member who did not follow the internal discipline and decided, by his conscience and will, to create an electoral alternative. Tomorrow it is this member or other who incites, practices, lets practice or justifies extreme violence against peasant families who have the misfortune of dwelling upon valuable mineral resources. The day after tomorrow is a group that kidnaps and whips or beats an independent or oppositional analyst, or murders a jurist or other citizen because of his convictions. The next day is someone who disagrees with the constitutional order and shoots until it is heard, decentralized, demobilized and reintegrated, and given the power to name democratically.
And so on.
All this has to stop. In order to really demarcate from a speech of political hatred against one of its members, Frelimo and all other organizations have to demarcate the whole discourse of hatred, power and control over others, and resort to violence as the first who has more power to exercise control over all spheres of society. Or we will risk normalizing hatred and violence as an economic, political and social culture, method and practice, and its denunciation will require more and more courage and will be more and more confined to isolated acts.
We have to go much further than to repeat the soft discourse of tolerance which cohabits with the omnipotence mentality and the practice of exclusion and hatred.
The question is not tolerance but equality. We are socially equal and we have equal rights even though they are humanly and politically different. No one should have the power to choose to be tolerant (as if he were superior but for moral reasons ethics tolerates others) or hate. Either we are equal, with equal rights, with equal freedoms, or we are building a constitutionally articulated farce as democracy that grows on a barrel of gunpowder. It does not work that way. (Carlos Nuno Castelo Branco)
All this has to stop. In order to really demarcate from a speech of political hatred against one of its members, Frelimo and all other organizations have to demarcate the whole discourse of hatred, power and control over others, and resort to violence as the first who has more power to exercise control over all spheres of society. Or we will risk normalizing hatred and violence as an economic, political and social culture, method and practice, and its denunciation will require more and more courage and will be more and more confined to isolated acts.
We have to go much further than to repeat the soft discourse of tolerance which cohabits with the omnipotence mentality and the practice of exclusion and hatred.
The question is not tolerance but equality. We are socially equal and we have equal rights even though they are humanly and politically different. No one should have the power to choose to be tolerant (as if he were superior but for moral reasons ethics tolerates others) or hate. Either we are equal, with equal rights, with equal freedoms, or we are building a constitutionally articulated farce as democracy that grows on a barrel of gunpowder. It does not work that way. (Carlos Nuno Castelo Branco)
He was educated at Eduardo Mondlane
University (Diploma in Development Studies), the University of East
Anglia (Diploma in Development Economics, 1991, and MA
Industrial Development, 1992), the University of Oxford
(MSc Development Economics, 1997) and SOAS, University of
London (PhD Economics, 2002).[2] He was an Associate Professor in
industrialization and development economics at Eduardo Mondlane
University, from 1992 to 2012, and was Director of the Instituto
de Estudos Sociais e Económicos (Institute for Social and Economic Studies)
(IESE) from 2007 to 2012, and coordinator of IESE's research group on economics
and development, from 2007 to 2017. He is, currently, a visiting professor at
the Lisbon School of Economics and Management, ISEG, of the
University of Lisbon (https://www.iseg.ulisboa.pt), and a
researcher of ISEG's Centre for African, Asian and Latin American Studies, CEsA
(https://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~cesa).
His main research focus is on political economy of economic crisis and
transformation and systems of capital accumulation in Africa. Within this broad
area, he is working, currently, on crisis and dependent capitalism, public debt
and financialization, and premature financialization and premature
deindustrialization in Mozambique. Information on his work and publications
(most of which can be accessed online) is available from research gate, a data
base of scientific research and publications, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Castel-Branco/stats/profile_views.
0 comentários:
Post a Comment