Between Facts and Fantasy: Brazil in the View of Denis Rosenfield

A chat about what really matters 

In the Brazilian public debate for four decades, philosopher Denis Rosenfield follows a rule he applies to both a newspaper article and a board meeting: separating fact from narrative. In this conversation with Eden Paz and Ari Pellicioli, founding partners of the ConsulPaz Group, for the 43rd edition of Conteúdo Compartilhado magazine, he was direct about the topics that most concern business decision-makers in Brazil today: the tension between the Branches of the Republic, the final design of the Tax Reform, and the cost to companies of operating in a country where, in his words, "reality already comes masked." 

A native of Porto Alegre, Rosenfield built an unconventional trajectory: a degree in philosophy from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, a State Doctorate from the University of Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne) with a thesis on politics and freedom in Hegel, over 30 years as a full professor of philosophy at UFRGS, a biweekly column in Folha de São Paulo for over 20 years, and stints as a columnist for Estadão and O Globo. He was also a close advisor to former President Michel Temer and advised one of the country's largest business confederations for 12 years—always, as he tells it, saying what he thought "to their face," for better or worse. 

In this interview, he explains why he sees Brazil "without balance between the Powers," how this translates into risk for investors, his reading of the Tax Reform, and why, in his view, an entrepreneur should not hire a consultant "to tell him what he wants to hear." Follow along. 

"There's nothing common about it": a trajectory off the script 

The conversation began with Rosenfield's own biography—and he did not hesitate to confirm: "I must admit, there's nothing common about it." Graduating during a period of purges at UFRGS, when professors with whom he would have affinity had left the university, he decided to do his undergraduate studies in Mexico, with his father's support. At the end of the course, he went straight to Paris—still young, at 26—at a time when France, as he recalls citing historian Tony Judt, was "the center of the world from an intellectual point of view." 

Language was no obstacle: born into a Jewish family—75% Ashkenazi and 25% Sephardic of Turkish origin—Rosenfield grew up hearing French at home. "I had two alternatives: either I spoke French, or I didn't understand what my mother, my uncles, and my grandmother were saying. I spoke it by obligation," he recalls, calling it "an excellent obligation." 

At the Sorbonne, an episode marked his formation. When introducing himself to one of the institution's great professors to propose a thesis on Hegel, he heard a direct question: did he know German? The answer was no—and the instruction equally direct: "Then go to Germany first." Rosenfield went, learned the language with a Goethe Institute scholarship, and back in Paris, received another recommendation that would define five years of his life: go to the National Library and research on his own, without the tutorial supervision of the American model. "I took it literally," he says. The result was the State Doctorate—the highest degree in the French university system, rarely awarded to foreigners—published in France, Spain, and Brazil. 

Back in the country, he was hired almost immediately by UFRGS. He turned down invitations to teach in Campinas and to return to Paris, and only left academic life when he decided to dedicate himself to consulting for companies and unions—when, in his words, "the university professor's salary didn't fit" into his activities. 

Frankness as a method—and as a calculated risk 

If there is one trait Rosenfield claims as a personal trademark, it is frankness. "I am a very frank man. I speak directly and have no difficulty doing so," he states. It was this characteristic, he says, that brought him close to former President Michel Temer, then vice-president, and consolidated a friendship of weekly conversations: "He told me: 'Denis, you would come and tell me to my face that you didn't agree. I needed someone who would tell me to my face.'" 

The same posture, he acknowledges, had costs. As an advisor to a large national confederation for 12 years, he was kept on by a new president precisely because he didn't "kiss the ring"—but dismissed years later when he repeated the same frankness with that same president. "The worst part is that I was right. Later they acknowledged I was right, but the damage had already been done," he summarizes, attributing the outcome to the self-esteem of those who are confronted. 

"I don't understand why people hire someone to tell them what they think. That's money thrown away—just look in the mirror," he provokes, commenting on why he values consultants and advisors willing to openly disagree with those who hire them. 

Facts versus narrative: the diagnosis of the institutional crisis 

Asked by Ari Pellicioli how to interpret the Brazilian political moment—between survey data and the narrative constructed on social media—Rosenfield was categorical: analysis must always start from the facts. "The problem is that we are living in an era where reality already comes masked, fantastically disguised by the social media narrative," he stated, citing a quote by Umberto Eco about the democratization of opinion on networks: "We are entering the kingdom of fools." 

In the philosopher's view, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) is currently experiencing a crisis of credibility that he describes through a metaphor: "There is an earthquake in Brazil. The facts are overwhelming. The seismograph didn't work well, but no one is worried about the seismograph anymore—they are worried about the earthquake and its consequences." For him, procedural questioning has been used to deflect attention from substantive facts investigated by the Federal Police involving ministers of the Court. 

Challenged by Eden Paz on a parallel with the Curitiba court case in Operation Car Wash—when a procedural issue (jurisdiction) annulled cases—Rosenfield recognized the risk of repetition, but outlined specific scenarios for Justice André Mendonça's case: a possible intermediate solution (as occurred with former Justice Toffoli), with institutional erosion for the Supreme Court itself; or the advancement of an impeachment process in the Senate, should the composition of the House change in the February presidential election. "The moment the impeachment goes to the floor, it will be approved. What will happen? A grave institutional crisis, a Senate decision against the Supreme Court," he projected. 

Rosenfield also cited a statement attributed to Justice Gilmar Mendes—that "illegal and herd-like" orders from the Supreme Court should not be followed by Federal Police delegates—as a dangerous precedent of "institutional disobedience," by transferring the decision to fulfill or not an order to subordinate agents in the State hierarchy. 

The price of institutional instability for those doing business 

For Eden Paz, the institutional backdrop already appears in everyday business numbers—more bankruptcies, more court-ordered reorganizations, more expensive credit. Rosenfield agreed with the diagnosis and pointed to the root of the problem: "Today the economy has intertwined with politics. This logic is terrifying—it will explode next year." For him, public debt results in higher interest rates and inflation, with a direct effect on credit and demand for services—"and the bill, whether President Lula wants it or not, must be paid." 

When questioned about the effect of this scenario on attracting foreign investment, Rosenfield relativized: institutional risk is real, but the effect varies by sector. "The national crisis is given, but in your line of business, it may not affect you. You have to know how to discriminate the company's niche," he explained, citing a recent case where he advised an international company to separately evaluate general political risk and specific sectoral risk—whether it is defense industry, agribusiness, or steel, for example. In his assessment, despite political turbulence, "the Brazilian economy is vibrant, despite its problems [...] Brazilian society is better than its political elite." 

WHAT THE NUMBERS SIGNAL 

Rosenfield referenced official data on bankruptcies, judicial recoveries, and business closures as evidence of the impact of high credit costs on small and medium-sized companies—a trend associated, in the economic debate, with the high-interest cycle and institutional insecurity. For the final published version, it is recommended to complement this point with the most recent numbers from primary sources such as Serasa Experian, the Central Bank, and the Federal Revenue, ensuring precision and timeliness of the data cited. 

Tax Reform: real simplification or revenue increase? 

Ari Pellicioli brought to the table the topic that currently dominates the planning of any Brazilian company: the Tax Reform. The question was direct—will the reform survive regulation, or lose strength "exception by exception"? Rosenfield made a distinction he considers central: the reform does indeed have a simplification component for the tax system, but it was conducted, in his reading, with the primary goal of increasing federal government revenue. "That speech that there will be no increase in the tax burden is a complete fallacy—it does not correspond to reality," he stated. 

One of the points of greatest insecurity pointed out by him is the Selective Tax, whose rate—applicable to products such as cigarettes, sugar, salt, alcohol, and fertilizers—had not yet been defined at the time of the interview. This generates, according to Rosenfield, a concrete practical problem for small companies: Simples Nacional taxpayers need to decide their tax option before knowing what the final rate applied to their activity will be. "Look at the absurdity we live in: I'll have to choose something I don't yet know how it will be," Eden Paz summarized during the conversation—a provocation with which Rosenfield agreed, classifying the scenario as "a tax anarchy that harms companies." 

On the agribusiness sector, specifically, Rosenfield argued that the more intensive use of fertilizers in Brazil compared to Europe stems from climatic factors—the country has two or three harvests per year, versus one in Europe—and not from an alleged excessive or irresponsible use, an argument that, in his view, has been used to justify heavier taxation on agricultural inputs. 

HOW TO APPLY IN PRACTICE — FOR COMPANIES AMID THE TAX TRANSITION 

• • Map the company's current tax classification and simulate scenarios with different possible rates of the Selective Tax and the new dual VAT model. 

• • Evaluate the timing for regime migration (Simples Nacional vs. hybrid regime) with the support of a tax specialist—avoid rushed decisions in the face of rates that are not yet consolidated. 

• • Separate general political risk from specific sectoral risk before investment or expansion decisions—not every institutional scenario affects all sectors equally. 

• • Maintain an active regulatory monitoring channel (legal or specialized consultancy) in light of the ongoing regulation of the Tax Reform. 

• • Avoid long-term structural decisions based only on trending news—always go back to the primary source (text of the law, technical note, official data). 

The businessman's role in the face of politics 

Faced with political fragmentation—Rosenfield cited the figure of 37% of independent voters in Rio Grande do Sul—Eden Paz asked how this uncertainty reflects on the behavior of businesspeople. For the philosopher, the answer is clear: companies and trade associations should not publicly manifest in the name of candidacies, as their role is to seek the legitimate interest of the business and negotiate with whoever is elected, whatever the result. "This is a fact about which Brazil is mistaken—it ends up harming the sector," he assessed. 

Appropriate engagement, in his view, is different: to fund, as an individual, candidates aligned with one's worldview or business interests. "With a CPF [Individual Taxpayer ID], he gives money to whoever he wants. In fact, I think he gives too little—they should engage more," he provoked, adding a direct criticism of the lack of participation: "Perhaps we have today the political class we deserve, because there is no engagement." 

From the soundbite to the content: the challenge of corporate communication 

Returning to a reflection by Rosenfield himself on how 40 or 50-minute interviews are usually reduced to a single sentence on social media, Eden Paz brought the parallel into companies: how to prevent an entire process of organizational transformation from being summarized in a clip that does not represent the work? For the philosopher, the social media phenomenon—which privileges short, punchy phrases—is unlikely to be reversed in the short term. But there is a way out in face-to-face practice: "Trust, looking into the eyes, gestures, intervention at the right moment make all the difference. That's where you move from the 'like' to a conversation." 

As a practical recommendation for corporate and institutional communication, he suggests a formula tested over decades of consulting: produce full documents, but always accompanied by an executive summary of up to two pages. "Make a 50-page document that someone will read? Forget it. Give the 50 pages and the executive summary saying: if you want to develop any point, go to page X," he explained, linking the recommendation to a broader concern with the loss of the reading habit in contemporary society.

GLOSSARY 

Selective Tax — new federal tax provided for in the Tax Reform, levied on products considered harmful to health or the environment (such as cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and, under debate, fertilizers); its rate was still being defined at the time of the interview. 

Simples Nacional — simplified tax regime aimed at micro and small businesses, which unifies the collection of federal, state, and municipal taxes into a single form. 

Impeachment — political-legal process for removing a public authority for breach of official duties; in the case of STF justices, it is the responsibility of the Federal Senate. 

Natural judge — constitutional principle according to which every person must be tried by the competent court previously defined by law, and not chosen after the fact. 

State Doctorate — former French academic degree, now extinct, considered the country's highest university title, historically rare among foreign researchers. 

What needs to change in Brazil, according to Rosenfield 

Invited to point out structural priorities for the country in the coming years, Rosenfield cited two central axes. The first is the resumption of liberal principles in the economy—fiscal responsibility and reducing the role of the State in activities that, in his assessment, generate recurring losses, citing the Post Office as an example. "We cannot continue with this fiscal irresponsibility, with this explosive increase in public debt," he stated, attributing the success of the first Lula government, in contrast with later mandates, to the maintenance of these principles inherited from the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government. 

The second axis is the rebalancing between the Branches of the Republic. For Rosenfield, the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive all need to act within their institutional limits—"the Supreme Court must contain itself; if it doesn't contain itself, it will be contained," he said, citing as a concrete example the erosion suffered by the 2017 Labor Reform, in which he claims to have participated as a technical operator, after specific decisions by the Supreme Federal Court and the Superior Labor Court had, in his assessment, hollowed out parts of the law approved by Congress. 

Closing: facts first, always 

Asked, in the final stretch of the conversation, for a prediction for the next chapters of the Brazilian political crisis, Rosenfield was cautious: "In Brazil it is becoming difficult to predict anything—every day there is something different." Still, he reaffirmed his central conviction: without changes in the institutional balance, the country is heading toward a deeper crisis. "If something isn't done, we will go to an institutional crisis. I am convinced of that." 

The final message, however, returned to the starting point of the interview: the defense of method over opinion. When reporting the research process that resulted in his most recent book, about war from a philosophical perspective, Rosenfield summarized his worldview in a sentence that also serves as a message to any businessman, manager, or communicator: "It's not just narrative, it's content, it's research, it's data—that's what makes the difference. It's not just any opinion: it's something grounded and solid." 

WHO IS DENIS ROSENFIELD 

Denis Rosenfield is a philosopher, contemporary thinker, writer, and columnist. Graduated in philosophy from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, he holds a doctorate from the University of Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne), with a thesis on politics and freedom in Hegel published in three languages. He was a full professor of philosophy at UFRGS for over 30 years and is a 1A researcher at CNPq. A columnist for Folha de São Paulo for over 20 years and a former columnist for Estadão and O Globo, he heads the Rosenfield Research Institute, where he publishes periodic analyses on politics, elections, and the economy. He also acts as a consultant for companies and business entities. 

Check out the full chat with Denis Rosenfield on the ConsulPaz Group's YouTube channel and podcast, also available through the digital version of this 43rd edition of Conteúdo Compartilhado magazine.