Next!

As declarações de Soares, Alegre & Cia. sobre o que Seguro deveria ou iria decidir («ele garantiu-me que…», enquanto decorriam as negociações...), foram mais um episódio na já longa sucessão de sinais de desrespeito para com o secretário-geral do PS, por parte quer das gradas figuras socialistas (os inefáveis «senadores»), quer da ala dos «jovens turcos».

Ao terem falado como falaram, não perceberam (ou perceberam-no bem demais), que estavam a «tramar» Seguro, lançando, para sempre, a dúvida sobre os verdadeiros motivos da decisão que o secretário-geral viesse a adoptar. Os elogios póstumos são, por isso, um pináculo de cinismo.

Seguro, claro, ajudou à festa com a declaração de ontem. Tudo pareceu encaixar na tese do «condicionamento interno»: o corte abrupto nas negociações, a notória posição de inflexibilidade por parte do PS, a prosa vaga e demagógica. Zero de disfarce.

Para quem tivesse dúvidas sobre a inconsequência da proposta de Cavaco Silva para um «compromisso de salvação nacional» (a propósito: não houve tempo para encontrar uma expressão menos dramática e definitiva?), ela está, agora, à vista. Após a demissão de Gaspar e o ridículo episódio com Portas (que deve começar a pensar noutro ofício), Cavaco Silva deveria ter feito uma de duas coisas: ou aceitava a solução governativa apresentada por Passos Coelho - não dando, a partir daí, a menor margem de manobra ao governo para mais divertimentos -, ou convocava eleições antecipadas. Pôr à mesa das negociações actores políticos medíocres, mesquinhamente agarrados à imagem que o partido projecta nos respectivos eleitoradozinhos, acabrunhados com passadas «patifarias» e sedentos de futuras «vinganças», hábeis na perfídia parlamentar e inábeis em enfrentar a realidade, não foi apenas um erro de palmatória: foi uma estúpida perda de tempo.

Tudo previsivelmente mau, nada minimamente edificante. E o som do país, ao fundo, a despenhar-se.

Ainda vamos a tempo de aprender

Do editorial da The Spectator, 06/07/2013

Egypt shows us that elections aren’t enough
"Democracy and holding elections are not the same thing. There could be no better demonstration of this than the experience of Egypt. Protesters who two years ago gathered in Cairo to force a dictator out of office, and to win the right to replace him with an elected government, are back — this time to demand the resignation of the president whom they elected. The likely result is, by popular demand, a return to what preceded the Arab spring of 2011: a military dictatorship, for a period at least. From a western perspective this is inexplicable: why would people want to risk their lives to overthrow a military-backed president, only to come back two years later to reverse what they seemed to have achieved? But then the West sees the events in Egypt through the prism of societies where democracy has evolved over a much longer period — centuries, in the case of Britain and the US. The experience of young democracies is that they often do have sharp reversals. Hold an election in a country which lacks the traditions and institutions of an established democracy and the question can all too easily be: which dictator would you like next? As in Egypt, as in Russia: there are plenty who wonder what the revolution was all about.
The West needs to learn from Egypt because for the past two decades the US and its allies have been too keen to believe that a country is free when it holds elections. When we have intervened, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have tended to treat the first elections as a pivotal moment following which, excepting a few hiccups, the country will necessarily embark on an enlightened path to peace, stability and respect for human rights. When the elections are followed by further chaos we have tended to tell ourselves (like Donald Rumsfeld dismissing the murderous aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s overthrow with the words ‘freedom’s untidy’) that it is just a bit of exuberance from a people who have been oppressed for decades.
The lesson of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Egypt is that democracy only works when a freely elected parliament is supported by the other institutions which guarantee freedom in the West: fair and independent courts, a police force reasonably free of corruption, a free press, an army which does not seek to intervene in political debate. It is a paradox that while the West has encouraged elections in every Middle Eastern country in which it has found itself involved, many of our friends in the region have been countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia whose leaders do not themselves bother seeking a mandate from their people. They are countries whose attitude to human rights leaves plenty to be desired, yet it is easier to do business with them than with a volatile democracy.
David Cameron acted boldly over Libya, and his instincts in that case were vindicated by events. But this should not give him a taste for interfering in Arab politics. It is tempting to take sides when a country seems to have a chance to overthrow a theocracy or military dictatorship; to think that with a nod and a wink, a missile and a tank, we can groom a favoured leader whom the people might be inclined to rubber-stamp at the polls. But such efforts usually backfire, and anyway, in Cairo today, America’s opinion counts for little. What Britain thinks matters even less.
The Arab Spring was welcomed by those who believed that any regime change had to be for the better — because history was on a course towards liberal democracy. As Egyptians have found, things are not quite so straightforward: the ballot boxes brought new waves of sectarian bloodshed and new shortages of food, fuel and security. Britain can hope that Egypt will evolve into a stable democracy. But we will not speed up that process by trying to bully or cajole it in a particular direction. This time we would do better to admit that we do not have the answers."