A Study on Pragmatism, Polarization, and the Choice of a Societal Project

Political pragmatism is a philosophical approach that argues the value and truth of an idea should be measured primarily by its practical consequences. This tradition emphasizes action, utility, and concrete results rather than abstract theories or perfect ideals. According to pragmatism, a thought proves its value only insofar as it can create positive impacts on reality. In daily life, this approach encourages setting clear goals and not allowing excessive abstractions to distract us from the chosen path. However, this does not mean completely abandoning principles; rather, it acknowledges that principles must engage in a dialogue with reality in order to produce effective transformations.

In the realm of politics, pragmatism becomes much more complex, because the methods used to achieve results play as crucial a role as the results themselves. During election periods, the differences between political projects generally become even sharper; this is quite understandable. The clearer the distinctions between rivals, the easier it becomes to mobilize voters, reinforce political identities, and make the paths before society visible. It is precisely this concrete dimension of politics that has placed Niccolò Machiavelli in a unique position in the history of political thought. In his work The Prince, Machiavelli analyzed politics as it is and how it actually functions, breaking away from the normative tradition that dictated how rulers ought to behave.

In contrast to Machiavelli, Aristotle viewed politics as the highest of human activities and argued that its purpose is to realize the common good. According to Aristotle, the polis exists to provide its citizens with a good life, and the legitimacy of politics lies precisely in the pursuit of justice and virtue. Between Aristotle and Machiavelli, there is not merely a contrast, but two different ways of understanding power: One is oriented toward the ethical purpose of society, while the other relies on a realistic grasp of the conditions under which power is exercised. Centuries later, Max Weber added a new dimension to this debate with the distinction between the ethic of conviction and the ethic of responsibility. According to Weber, a public official cannot act solely based on absolute principles; they must also consider the consequences of their decisions.

Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio has also made a significant contribution by reminding us that democracy does not eliminate conflicts, but rather creates institutions capable of managing them peacefully. Contradictions and disagreements are inherent to democratic life by nature. The issue lies not in the existence of differences, but in the inability to transform these differences into a rational, respectful debate committed to collective interests. Brazil's political history demonstrates that electoral pragmatism has, in many cases, exacerbated the scale of disagreements. In fierce competitions, everything coming from an opponent is rejected on principle; as if acknowledging a point where the opposing side is correct is perceived as a political weakness.

Such behaviors impoverish public discourse, weaken institutions, and threaten political health by deepening polarization. On the other hand, ignoring the reality of the differences between political projects would be equally naive. Different models of the state, economic development strategies, social protection policies, public security approaches, and forms of social organization naturally entail distinct choices. In certain situations, being neutral is not a balance; it means an inability to distinguish between fundamentally different paths. What truly matters is the nature of this encounter: Will it be shaped around the foundations of human dignity, solidarity, social justice, and the protection of the planet, or will a pragmatism that turns power into an end in itself and sees any means as justified for the sake of the outcome prevail? A qualified debate environment committed to the truth will make the construction of a more mature democracy and a fairer future possible.