“The problem with polarization is thinking that the other must be destroyed,” says the USP law professor.

Professor and Director of the Faculty of Law at the University of São Paulo (USP), Floriano de Azevedo Marquez Neto analyzes the death of Marcelo Arruda, assassinated by a supporter of President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) during his 50th birthday on Saturday evening the 9th as a portrait of the escalating violence on the Brazilian political scene. “We have seen violence in communication, violence in speech, and now we are starting to see the result of this – violence in actions leading to death,” he says in an interview. Estadão. Marques Neto also emphasizes that this escalation of violence can be “a harbinger of very dark moments”, and recalls that such situations were “consistently during the rise of Nazism, eugenics and racist discourses”. For a USP professor of public law, even those who encourage these extremist discourses are participants in these acts of violence. “The problem with polarization is that you think the other should be destroyed. And this, unfortunately, has become the leitmotif of the national political game.”

What are the risks of more extremist, more violent discourses in the polarized political environment we live in Brazil?

I think that these discourses that deny the opposite interlocutor are going down a very dangerous path. If you take the history of mankind over the past 100 years, this is a harbinger of very dark, very bad times for humanity. Discourse that makes the other side unacceptable and denies otherwise leads to the solution of the problem by violence. This discourse brings no luck or achievement, it can only produce acts of violence like this in Parana, and whoever encourages these discourses is a participant in these acts of violence.

Do you believe there is an escalation of violence in our political scenario?

We have witnessed an escalation of violence, regardless of specific actions. We have seen violence in communication, violence in speech, and now we are beginning to see the result of this – violence in actions leading to death. It never begins with acts of physical violence, but begins with speeches denying the other. It was a constant in the rise of Nazism, a constant in the rise of eugenics, racist discourses, and now we see it on the Brazilian political scene.

Is this escalation related to the polarization we are seeing in our politics?

This is part of what we see in the world today. Polarization is a key feature of what we are seeing around the world, and in general, Brazil will ultimately maximize it. The problem with polarization is not that you have antagonistic differences with each other. It is you who deny recognition and significance in the other. You feel that the other must be destroyed. And this, unfortunately, has become the leitmotif of the national political game.

Are the most violent speeches present from all sides of the polarization?

It is present everywhere. The only difference is that perhaps one side has more means to act physically violently, through violence, because of the greater freedom of action with weapons than the other side. But the discourse is the same at both poles.