ANTÓNIO TEODORO

 .

A Deloitte e a implosão

do Ministério da Educação

Porque precisa um dos maiores ministérios do Estado de recorrer sucessivamente a uma consultora privada para se reorganizar, redesenhar processos e apoiar decisões estratégicas?

𝖠𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍ı́𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗆-𝗌𝖾. 𝖯𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈, 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖣𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖢𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖨𝗇𝗈𝗏𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖣𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌, 𝗇𝗈𝗏𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖺̂𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅. 𝖠𝗀𝗈𝗋𝖺, 𝗎𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗏𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖢𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋, 𝗂𝗌𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗎𝗆 𝖾𝗉𝗂𝗌𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖬𝖺𝗌, 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝖽𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖫𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈: 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋, 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌

𝖠 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝖺́𝖼𝗂𝗅 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝖣𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾. 𝖲𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅. 𝖮 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋. 𝖠𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺̃ 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅. 𝖮 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖰𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅, 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝖺́𝗅𝗂𝗌𝖾, 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖾𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗋𝗂-𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈.

𝖤́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗋.

𝖠 𝗋𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗂𝗌𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖥𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖠𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗋𝖾. 𝖤𝗅𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾-𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖠𝖽𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖦𝗈𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗅𝗈 𝖬𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗌. 𝖮 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺̂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈. 𝖤́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗋.

𝖤𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺. 𝖧𝖺́ 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾́𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝗋𝗈𝗂𝗄𝖺, 𝖭𝗎𝗇𝗈 𝖢𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 “𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈”. 𝖮 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 “𝖾𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾”. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗎𝗆 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖮 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗈, 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝖼𝗅𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗑𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈.

𝖠𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈, 𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖩𝖺́ 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖩𝖺́ 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺 𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅, 𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗏𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖬𝗎𝖽𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺𝖻𝗎𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈. 𝖠 𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖾́𝗆, 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾: 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗉𝗂𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈.

𝖱𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈

𝖤́ 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖭𝗈𝗏𝖺 𝖦𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺. 𝖣𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝟣𝟫𝟪𝟢, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗑𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺. 𝖠 𝖾𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖠 𝗀𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌. 𝖮𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗋 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈. 𝖠 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈. 𝖤 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈.

𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾́, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝗂𝗌ı́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗌. 𝖴𝗆 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌. 𝖤𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗅𝖺́ 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝖼𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖲𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗌. 𝖰𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾, 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗋𝖺́𝗉𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌.

𝖤́ 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖣𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝖽𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗆𝖺. 𝖲𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺: 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈𝖻𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋. 𝖮 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈.

𝖠𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗈𝗉𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗆 𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗆-𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗌ı́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈: 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖨𝟤, 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍ı́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗏𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝖾́𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝖾 𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗃𝗎ı́𝗓𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗋𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗇𝗈𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌. 𝖢𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺. 𝖤𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺: 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗀𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈; 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗅𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌; 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝖽𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾.

𝖮 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝖣𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾. 𝖤́ 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗂 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈. 𝖴𝗆𝖺 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗇𝗎́𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌-𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝖾, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗓 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌. 𝖬𝖾𝖽𝖾-𝗌𝖾, 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝖼𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺.

𝖤́ 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺. 𝖴𝗆 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋, 𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝗈. 𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖠 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗎́𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌. 𝖱𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗏𝖺𝗓𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂 𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺: 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈, 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅.

𝖤́ 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺𝗋-𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋. 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗆. 𝖠 𝖾𝗋𝗈𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾́𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌.

* Professor de Sociologia e Educação. Diretor do CeiED e do Instituto de Educação da Universidade Lusófona

IN "VISÃO" -09/08/26 .