Na génese da nossa história de libertação nacional, estou certo de que a grande maioria daqueles que abraçaram a luta não teve subjacente à sua decisão pilares ideológicos que os definissem como seres de esquerda ou de direita. Lutaram estoicamente pela libertação do seu país do jugo colonialista. Entre alguns desses nacionalistas, fruto fundamentalmente da sua formação académica e meio que frequentavam, cresceram bases ideológicas que os situaram num padrão político de esquerda. E porque parte deles se inseriu no núcleo que conduziu a resistência armada, a sua influência nas políticas pós-idependência foi visível, mas de curta duração.

Clivagens internas, fruto também de influências externas, levaram à erosão dessa força, conduzindo ao seu desaparecimento, quer de forma violenta (por via de contradições internas), quer progressiva, com o afastamento “administrativo” dos lugares que ocupavam na estrutura partidária. Perdeu-se, com este movimento, muito do sentido social das políticas que eram defendidas, caindo-se no poder pelo poder, em que o importante era a construção de impérios financeiros que, sobretudo, sustentassem poderes pessoais e familiares e de grupo.

Leia o artigo completo na edição de Fevereiro, já disponível no aplicativo E&M para Android e em login (appeconomiaemercado.com).

Left or right, which path to take?

Being nationalists does not define us ideologically as a left winger or a right winger.

I am sure that, at the genesis of our national liberation history, the vast majority of those who embraced the fight did not make this decision based on ideological pillars that defined them as being from the left wing or from the right wing. They fought firmly for the liberation of their country from the colonial oppression. Among some of these nationalists - most of them being the result of their academic background and environment where they spent their time – produced ideological roots that positioned them under a political standard of the left wing. And because some of them joined the cell that led to the armed resistance, their influence over the post-independence policies was visible, but only for a short period of time. Internal divisions, also due to the external influences, resulted in the erosion of this force, leading to its demise violently (internal contradictions) or gradually, with the "administrative" removal of the positions they held within the party structure. With this move, it was lost much of the social significance of the policies that were originally advocated; they fell over the philosophy of “holding the power for the power”, where building financial empires that, above all, sustain personal, family and group powers is the most important.

Although they were the main reason behind the liberation movement, the people were largely forgotten. The liberation movement, as an advocate for major social causes, was quickly transformed into a breeding ground of interest groups. The civil war became a “greater good” for some who saw it as an opportunity to increase their plundering efforts, under the pretext of defending the national security.

Read the full article in the February issue, now available on the E&M app for Android and at login (appeconomiaemercado.com).