Excerpt: "In reporting on Brazil, Western media outlets have most
prominently focused on the increasingly large street protests demanding the
impeachment of Rousseff. They have typically depicted those protests in
idealized, cartoon terms of adoration: as an inspiring, mass populist
uprising against a corrupt regime. ... That narrative is, at best, a radical
oversimplification of what is happening and, more often, crass propaganda
designed to undermine a left-wing party long disliked by U.S. foreign policy
elites."
President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, with members of the Federal Senate.
(photo: Renan Calheiros/Getty Images)
Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption - and a Dangerous Subversion
of Democracy
By Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Fishman and David Miranda, The Intercept
22 March 16
The multiple, remarkable crises consuming Brazil are now garnering
substantial Western media attention. Thats understandable given that Brazil
is the worlds fifth most populous country and eighth-largest economy; its
second-largest city, Rio de Janeiro, is the host of this years Summer
Olympics. But much of this Western media coverage mimics the propaganda
coming from Brazils homogenized, oligarch-owned, anti-democracy media
outlets and, as such, is misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete,
particularly when coming from those with little familiarity with the country
(there are numerous Brazil-based Western reporters doing outstanding work).
It is difficult to overstate the severity of Brazils multi-level distress.
This short paragraph yesterday from the New York Timess Brazil bureau
chief, Simon Romero, conveys how dire it is:
Brazil is suffering its worst economic crisis in decades. An enormous graft
scheme has hobbled the national oil company. The Zika epidemic is causing
despair across the northeast. And just before the world heads to Brazil for
the Summer Olympics, the government is fighting for survival, with almost
every corner of the political system under the cloud of scandal.
Brazils extraordinary political upheaval shares some similarities with the
Trump-led political chaos in the U.S.: a sui generis, out-of-control circus
unleashing instability and some rather dark forces, with a positive ending
almost impossible to imagine. The once-remote prospect of President Dilma
Rousseffs impeachment now seems likely.
But one significant difference with the U.S. is that Brazils turmoil is not
confined to one politician. The opposite is true, as Romero notes: almost
every corner of the political system [is] under the cloud of scandal. That
includes not only Rousseffs moderately left-wing Workers Party, or PT
which is rife with serious corruption but also the vast majority of the
centrist and right-wing political and economic factions working to destroy
PT, which are drowning in at least an equal amount of criminality. In other
words, PT is indeed deeply corrupt and awash in criminal scandal, but so is
virtually every political faction working to undermine it and vying to seize
that partys democratically obtained power.
In reporting on Brazil, Western media outlets have most prominently focused
on the increasingly large street protests demanding the impeachment of
Rousseff. They have typically depicted those protests in idealized, cartoon
terms of adoration: as an inspiring, mass populist uprising against a
corrupt regime. Last night, NBC Newss Chuck Todd re-tweeted the Eurasia
Groups Ian Bremmer describing anti-Dilma protests as The People vs. the
President a manufactured theme consistent with what is being peddled by
Brazils anti-government media outlets such as Globo:
That narrative is, at best, a radical oversimplification of what is
happening and, more often, crass propaganda designed to undermine a
left-wing party long disliked by U.S. foreign policy elites. That depiction
completely ignores the historical context of Brazils politics and, more
importantly, several critical questions: Who is behind these protests, how
representative are the protesters of the Brazilian population, and what is
their actual agenda?
The current version of Brazilian democracy is very young. In 1964, the
countrys democratically elected left-wing government was overthrown by a
military coup. Both publicly and before Congress, U.S. officials vehemently
denied any role, but needless to say documents and recordings
subsequently emerged proving the U.S. directly supported and helped plot
critical aspects of that coup.
The 21-year, right-wing, pro-U.S. military dictatorship that ensued was
brutal and tyrannical, specializing in torture techniques used against
dissidents that were taught to the dictatorship by the U.S. and U.K. A
comprehensive 2014 Truth Commission report documented that both countries
trained Brazilian interrogators in torture techniques. Among their victims
was Rousseff, who was an anti-regime, left-wing guerilla imprisoned and
tortured by the military dictators in the 1970s.
The coup itself and the dictatorship that followed were supported by
Brazils oligarchs and their large media outlets, led by Globo, which
notably depicted the 1964 coup as a noble defeat of a corrupt left-wing
government (sound familiar?). The 1964 coup and dictatorship were also
supported by the nations extravagantly rich (and overwhelmingly white)
upper class and its small middle class. As democracy opponents often do,
Brazils wealthy factions regarded dictatorship as protection against the
impoverished masses comprised largely of non-whites. As The Guardian put it
upon release of the Truth Commission report: As was the case elsewhere in
Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, the elite and middle class aligned
themselves with the military to stave off what they saw as a communist
threat.
These severe class and race divisions in Brazil remain the dominant dynamic.
As the BBC put it in 2014 based on multiple studies: Brazil has one of the
highest levels of income inequality in the world. The Americas Quarterly
editor-in-chief, Brian Winter, reporting on the protests, wrote this week:
The gap between rich and poor remains the central fact of Brazilian life
and these protests are no different. If you want to understand anything
about the current political crisis in Brazil, its crucial to understand
what Winter means by that.
Dilmas Party, PT, was formed in 1980 as a classic Latin American left-wing
socialist party. To improve its national appeal, it moderated its socialist
dogma and gradually became a party more akin to Europes social democrats.
There are now popular parties to its left; indeed, Dilma, voluntarily or
otherwise, has advocated austerity measures to cure economic ills and
assuage foreign markets, and just this week enacted a draconian
anti-terrorism law. Still, PT resides on the center-left wing of Brazils
spectrum and its supporters are overwhelmingly Brazils poor and racial
minorities. In power, PT has ushered in a series of economic and social
reforms that have provided substantial government benefits and
opportunities, which have lifted millions of Brazilians out of poverty.
PT has held the presidency for 14 years: since 2002. Its popularity has been
the byproduct of Dilmas wildly charismatic predecessor, Luíz Inácio Lula da
Silva (universally referred to as Lula). Lulas ascendency was a potent
symbol of the empowerment of Brazils poor under democracy: a laborer and
union leader from a very poor family who dropped out of school in the second
grade, did not read until the age of 10, and was imprisoned by the
dictatorship for union activities. He has long been mocked by Brazilian
elites in starkly classist tones for his working-class accent and manner of
speaking.
After three unsuccessful runs for the presidency, Lula proved to be an
unstoppable political force. Elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, he left
office with such high approval ratings that he was able to ensure the
election of his previously unknown hand-picked successor, Dilma, who was
then re-elected in 2014. It has long been assumed that Lula who vocally
opposes austerity measures intends to run again for president in 2018
after completion of Dilmas second term, and anti-PT forces are petrified
that hed again beat them at the ballot box.
Though the nations oligarchical class has successfully used the
center-right PSDB as a counterweight, it has been largely impotent in
defeating PT in four consecutive presidential elections. Voting is
compulsory, and the nations poor citizens have ensured PTs victories.
Corruption among Brazils political class including the top levels of the
PT is real and substantial. But Brazils plutocrats, their media, and the
upper and middle classes are glaringly exploiting this corruption scandal to
achieve what they have failed for years to accomplish democratically: the
removal of PT from power.
Contrary to Chuck Todds and Ian Bremmers romanticized, misinformed (at
best) depiction of these protests as being carried out by The People, they
are, in fact, incited by the countrys intensely concentrated, homogenized,
and powerful corporate media outlets, and are composed (not exclusively but
overwhelmingly) of the nations wealthier, white citizens who have long
harbored animosity toward PT and anything that smacks of anti-poverty
programs.
Brazils corporate media outlets are acting as de facto protest organizers
and PR arms of opposition parties. The Twitter feeds of some of Globos most
influential (and very rich) on-air reporters contain non-stop anti-PT
agitation. When a recording of a telephone conversation between Dilma and
Lula was leaked this week, Globos highly influential nightly news program,
Jornal Nacional, had its anchors flamboyantly re-enact the dialogue in such
a melodramatic and provocatively gossipy fashion that it literally resembled
a soap opera far more than a news report, prompting widespread ridicule. For
months, Brazils top four newsmagazines have devoted cover after cover to
inflammatory attacks on Dilma and Lula, usually featuring ominous photos of
one or the other and always with a strikingly unified narrative.
To provide some perspective for how central the large corporate media has
been in inciting these protests: Recall the key role Fox News played in
promoting and encouraging attendance at the early Tea Party protests. Now
imagine what those protests would have been if it had not been just Fox, but
also ABC, NBC, CBS, Time magazine, the New York Times, and the Huffington
Post also supporting and inciting the Tea Party rallies. That is what has
been happening in Brazil: The largest outlets are owned and controlled by a
tiny number of plutocratic families, virtually all of whom are vehement,
class-based opponents of PT and whose media outlets have unified to fuel
these protests.
In sum, the business interests owned and represented by those media outlets
are almost uniformly pro-impeachment and were linked to the military
dictatorship. As Stephanie Nolen, the Rio-based reporter for Canadas Globe
and Mail, noted: It is clear that most of the countrys institutions are
lined up against the president.
Put simply, this is a campaign to subvert Brazils democratic outcomes by
monied factions that have long hated the results of democratic elections,
deceitfully marching under an anti-corruption banner: quite similar to the
1964 coup. Indeed, much of the Brazilian right longs for restoration of the
military dictatorship, and factions at these anti-corruption protests have
been openly calling for the end of democracy.
None of this is a defense of PT. Both because of genuine widespread
corruption in that party and national economic woes, Dilma and PT are
intensely unpopular among all classes and groups, even including the partys
working-class base. But the street protests as undeniably large and
energized as they have been are driven by those who are traditionally
hostile to PT. The number of people participating in these protests while
in the millions is dwarfed by the number (54 million) who voted to
re-elect Dilma less than two years ago. In a democracy, governments are
chosen by voting, not by displays of street opposition particularly where,
as in Brazil, the protests are drawn from a relatively narrow societal
segment.
As Winter reported: Last Sunday, when more than 1 million people took to
the streets, polls indicated that once again the crowd was significantly
richer, whiter, and more educated than Brazilians at large. Nolen similarly
reported: The half-dozen large anti-corruption demonstrations in the past
year have been dominated by white and upper-middle-class protesters, who
tend to be supporters of the opposition Brazilian Social Democratic Party
(PSDB), and to have little love for Ms. Rousseffs left-leaning Workers
Party.
Last weekend, when massive anti-Dilma protests emerged in most Brazilian
cities, a photograph of one of the families participating went viral, a
symbol of what these protests actually are. It showed a rich, white couple
decked out in anti-Dilma symbols and walking with their pure-breed dog,
trailed by their black weekend nanny wearing the all-white uniform many
rich Brazilians require their domestic servants to wear pushing a stroller
with their two children.
As Nolen noted, the photo became the emblem for the true, highly ideological
essence of these protests: Brazilians, who are deft and fast with memes,
reposted the picture with a thousand snarky captions, such as Speed it up,
there, Maria [the generic maid name], we have to get out to protest
against this government that made us pay you minimum wage.
To believe that the influential figures agitating for Dilmas impeachment
are motivated by an authentic anti-corruption crusade requires extreme
naïveté or willful ignorance. To begin with, the factions that would be
empowered by Dilmas impeachment are at least as implicated by corruption
scandals as she is: in most cases, more so.
Five of the members of the impeachment commission are themselves being
criminally investigated as part of the corruption scandal. That includes
Paulo Maluf, who faces an Interpol warrant for his arrest and has not been
able to leave the country for years; he has been sentenced in France to
three years in prison for money laundering. Of the 65 members of the House
impeachment committee, 36 currently face pending legal proceedings.
In the lower house of Congress, the leader of the impeachment movement, the
evangelical extremist Eduardo Cunha, was found to have maintained multiple
secret Swiss bank accounts, where he stored millions of dollars that
prosecutors believe were received as bribes. He is the target of multiple
active criminal investigations.
Meanwhile, Senator Aécio Neves, the leader of the Brazilian opposition who
Dilma narrowly defeated in the 2014 election, has himself been implicated at
least five separate times in the corruption scandal. One of the prosecutors
newest star witnesses just accused him of accepting bribes. That witness
also implicated the countrys vice president, Michel Temer, of the
opposition party PMDB, who would replace Dilma if she were impeached.
Then theres the recent behavior of the chief judge who has been overseeing
the corruption investigation and has become a folk hero for his commendably
aggressive investigations of some of the countrys richest and most powerful
figures. That judge, Sergio Moro, this week effectively leaked to the media
a tape-recorded, extremely vague conversation between Dilma and Lula, which
Globo and other anti-PT forces immediately depicted as incriminating. Moro
disclosed the recording of the conversation within hours of its taking
place.
Making Judge Moro into an idol contradicts a virtue he's supposed to
represent: the impersonality of institutions. pic.twitter.com/UdZaslh68M
Alex Cuadros (@alexcuadros) March 4, 2016
But the recorded conversation was released by Judge Moro with no due process
and, worse, with clearly political, not judicial, purposes: Namely, he was
furious that his investigation of Lula would be terminated by his
appointment to Dilmas cabinet (high officials can be investigated only by
the Supreme Court). His leak sought to embarrass Dilma and Lula and trigger
street protests, and thus provoked criticisms, even among his previous fans,
that he was now abusing his power by becoming a political actor. Worse, the
recording itself seems to have been illegally obtained since it was made
after the expiration of Judge Moros warrant. The head of Rio de Janeiros
bar association, Felipe Santa Cruz, called Moros actions a nauseating
embarrassment.
All of this raises the very clear danger that the criminal investigation and
impeachment process are not a legal exercise to punish criminal leaders, but
rather an anti-democratic political weapon wielded by political opponents to
remove a democratically elected president. That danger was even more starkly
highlighted yesterday when it was revealed that a judge who issued an order
blocking Lulas cabinet appointment by Dilma had days earlier posted to his
Facebook page numerous selfies of him marching in the anti-government
protest over the weekend. As Winter wrote, Convincing the public that the
Brazilian judiciary is at war with the Workers Party will be an easier
task than it was two weeks ago.
There is no question that PT is rife with corruption. There are serious
questions surrounding Lula that deserve an impartial and fair investigation.
And impeachment is a legitimate process in a democracy provided that the
targeted official is actually guilty of serious crimes and the law is
scrupulously followed in how the impeachment is effectuated.
But the picture currently emerging in Brazil surrounding impeachment and
these street protests is far more complicated, and far more ethically
ambiguous, than has frequently been depicted. The effort to remove Dilma and
her party from power now resembles a nakedly anti-democratic power struggle
more than a legally sound process or genuine anti-corruption movement.
Worse, its being incited, engineered, and fueled by the very factions who
are themselves knee-deep in corruption scandals, and who represent the
interests of the richest and most powerful societal segments long angry at
their inability to defeat PT democratically.
In other words, it all seems historically familiar, particular for Latin
America, where democratically elected left-wing governments have been
repeatedly removed by non-democratic, extra-legal means. In many ways, PT
and Dilma are not sympathetic victims. Large segments of the population are
genuinely angry at them for plainly legitimate reasons. But their sins do
not justify the sins of their long-standing political enemies, and most
certainly do not render subversion of Brazilian democracy something to
cheer.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, with members of the Federal Senate.
(photo: Renan Calheiros/Getty Images)
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/18/brazil-is-engulfed-by-ruling-class-corru
ption-and-a-dangerous-subversion-of-democracy/https://theintercept.com/2016/
03/18/brazil-is-engulfed-by-ruling-class-corruption-and-a-dangerous-subversi
on-of-democracy/
Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption - and a Dangerous Subversion
of Democracy
By Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Fishman and David Miranda, The Intercept
22 March 16
he multiple, remarkable crises consuming Brazil are now garnering
substantial Western media attention. Thats understandable given that Brazil
is the worlds fifth most populous country and eighth-largest economy; its
second-largest city, Rio de Janeiro, is the host of this years Summer
Olympics. But much of this Western media coverage mimics the propaganda
coming from Brazils homogenized, oligarch-owned, anti-democracy media
outlets and, as such, is misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete,
particularly when coming from those with little familiarity with the country
(there are numerous Brazil-based Western reporters doing outstanding work).
It is difficult to overstate the severity of Brazils multi-level distress.
This short paragraph yesterday from the New York Timess Brazil bureau
chief, Simon Romero, conveys how dire it is:
Brazil is suffering its worst economic crisis in decades. An enormous graft
scheme has hobbled the national oil company. The Zika epidemic is causing
despair across the northeast. And just before the world heads to Brazil for
the Summer Olympics, the government is fighting for survival, with almost
every corner of the political system under the cloud of scandal.
Brazils extraordinary political upheaval shares some similarities with the
Trump-led political chaos in the U.S.: a sui generis, out-of-control circus
unleashing instability and some rather dark forces, with a positive ending
almost impossible to imagine. The once-remote prospect of President Dilma
Rousseffs impeachment now seems likely.
But one significant difference with the U.S. is that Brazils turmoil is not
confined to one politician. The opposite is true, as Romero notes: almost
every corner of the political system [is] under the cloud of scandal. That
includes not only Rousseffs moderately left-wing Workers Party, or PT
which is rife with serious corruption but also the vast majority of the
centrist and right-wing political and economic factions working to destroy
PT, which are drowning in at least an equal amount of criminality. In other
words, PT is indeed deeply corrupt and awash in criminal scandal, but so is
virtually every political faction working to undermine it and vying to seize
that partys democratically obtained power.
In reporting on Brazil, Western media outlets have most prominently focused
on the increasingly large street protests demanding the impeachment of
Rousseff. They have typically depicted those protests in idealized, cartoon
terms of adoration: as an inspiring, mass populist uprising against a
corrupt regime. Last night, NBC Newss Chuck Todd re-tweeted the Eurasia
Groups Ian Bremmer describing anti-Dilma protests as The People vs. the
President a manufactured theme consistent with what is being peddled by
Brazils anti-government media outlets such as Globo:
That narrative is, at best, a radical oversimplification of what is
happening and, more often, crass propaganda designed to undermine a
left-wing party long disliked by U.S. foreign policy elites. That depiction
completely ignores the historical context of Brazils politics and, more
importantly, several critical questions: Who is behind these protests, how
representative are the protesters of the Brazilian population, and what is
their actual agenda?
The current version of Brazilian democracy is very young. In 1964, the
countrys democratically elected left-wing government was overthrown by a
military coup. Both publicly and before Congress, U.S. officials vehemently
denied any role, but needless to say documents and recordings
subsequently emerged proving the U.S. directly supported and helped plot
critical aspects of that coup.
The 21-year, right-wing, pro-U.S. military dictatorship that ensued was
brutal and tyrannical, specializing in torture techniques used against
dissidents that were taught to the dictatorship by the U.S. and U.K. A
comprehensive 2014 Truth Commission report documented that both countries
trained Brazilian interrogators in torture techniques. Among their victims
was Rousseff, who was an anti-regime, left-wing guerilla imprisoned and
tortured by the military dictators in the 1970s.
The coup itself and the dictatorship that followed were supported by
Brazils oligarchs and their large media outlets, led by Globo, which
notably depicted the 1964 coup as a noble defeat of a corrupt left-wing
government (sound familiar?). The 1964 coup and dictatorship were also
supported by the nations extravagantly rich (and overwhelmingly white)
upper class and its small middle class. As democracy opponents often do,
Brazils wealthy factions regarded dictatorship as protection against the
impoverished masses comprised largely of non-whites. As The Guardian put it
upon release of the Truth Commission report: As was the case elsewhere in
Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, the elite and middle class aligned
themselves with the military to stave off what they saw as a communist
threat.
These severe class and race divisions in Brazil remain the dominant dynamic.
As the BBC put it in 2014 based on multiple studies: Brazil has one of the
highest levels of income inequality in the world. The Americas Quarterly
editor-in-chief, Brian Winter, reporting on the protests, wrote this week:
The gap between rich and poor remains the central fact of Brazilian life
and these protests are no different. If you want to understand anything
about the current political crisis in Brazil, its crucial to understand
what Winter means by that.
Dilmas Party, PT, was formed in 1980 as a classic Latin American left-wing
socialist party. To improve its national appeal, it moderated its socialist
dogma and gradually became a party more akin to Europes social democrats.
There are now popular parties to its left; indeed, Dilma, voluntarily or
otherwise, has advocated austerity measures to cure economic ills and
assuage foreign markets, and just this week enacted a draconian
anti-terrorism law. Still, PT resides on the center-left wing of Brazils
spectrum and its supporters are overwhelmingly Brazils poor and racial
minorities. In power, PT has ushered in a series of economic and social
reforms that have provided substantial government benefits and
opportunities, which have lifted millions of Brazilians out of poverty.
PT has held the presidency for 14 years: since 2002. Its popularity has been
the byproduct of Dilmas wildly charismatic predecessor, Luíz Inácio Lula da
Silva (universally referred to as Lula). Lulas ascendency was a potent
symbol of the empowerment of Brazils poor under democracy: a laborer and
union leader from a very poor family who dropped out of school in the second
grade, did not read until the age of 10, and was imprisoned by the
dictatorship for union activities. He has long been mocked by Brazilian
elites in starkly classist tones for his working-class accent and manner of
speaking.
After three unsuccessful runs for the presidency, Lula proved to be an
unstoppable political force. Elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, he left
office with such high approval ratings that he was able to ensure the
election of his previously unknown hand-picked successor, Dilma, who was
then re-elected in 2014. It has long been assumed that Lula who vocally
opposes austerity measures intends to run again for president in 2018
after completion of Dilmas second term, and anti-PT forces are petrified
that hed again beat them at the ballot box.
Though the nations oligarchical class has successfully used the
center-right PSDB as a counterweight, it has been largely impotent in
defeating PT in four consecutive presidential elections. Voting is
compulsory, and the nations poor citizens have ensured PTs victories.
Corruption among Brazils political class including the top levels of the
PT is real and substantial. But Brazils plutocrats, their media, and the
upper and middle classes are glaringly exploiting this corruption scandal to
achieve what they have failed for years to accomplish democratically: the
removal of PT from power.
Contrary to Chuck Todds and Ian Bremmers romanticized, misinformed (at
best) depiction of these protests as being carried out by The People, they
are, in fact, incited by the countrys intensely concentrated, homogenized,
and powerful corporate media outlets, and are composed (not exclusively but
overwhelmingly) of the nations wealthier, white citizens who have long
harbored animosity toward PT and anything that smacks of anti-poverty
programs.
Brazils corporate media outlets are acting as de facto protest organizers
and PR arms of opposition parties. The Twitter feeds of some of Globos most
influential (and very rich) on-air reporters contain non-stop anti-PT
agitation. When a recording of a telephone conversation between Dilma and
Lula was leaked this week, Globos highly influential nightly news program,
Jornal Nacional, had its anchors flamboyantly re-enact the dialogue in such
a melodramatic and provocatively gossipy fashion that it literally resembled
a soap opera far more than a news report, prompting widespread ridicule. For
months, Brazils top four newsmagazines have devoted cover after cover to
inflammatory attacks on Dilma and Lula, usually featuring ominous photos of
one or the other and always with a strikingly unified narrative.
To provide some perspective for how central the large corporate media has
been in inciting these protests: Recall the key role Fox News played in
promoting and encouraging attendance at the early Tea Party protests. Now
imagine what those protests would have been if it had not been just Fox, but
also ABC, NBC, CBS, Time magazine, the New York Times, and the Huffington
Post also supporting and inciting the Tea Party rallies. That is what has
been happening in Brazil: The largest outlets are owned and controlled by a
tiny number of plutocratic families, virtually all of whom are vehement,
class-based opponents of PT and whose media outlets have unified to fuel
these protests.
In sum, the business interests owned and represented by those media outlets
are almost uniformly pro-impeachment and were linked to the military
dictatorship. As Stephanie Nolen, the Rio-based reporter for Canadas Globe
and Mail, noted: It is clear that most of the countrys institutions are
lined up against the president.
Put simply, this is a campaign to subvert Brazils democratic outcomes by
monied factions that have long hated the results of democratic elections,
deceitfully marching under an anti-corruption banner: quite similar to the
1964 coup. Indeed, much of the Brazilian right longs for restoration of the
military dictatorship, and factions at these anti-corruption protests have
been openly calling for the end of democracy.
None of this is a defense of PT. Both because of genuine widespread
corruption in that party and national economic woes, Dilma and PT are
intensely unpopular among all classes and groups, even including the partys
working-class base. But the street protests as undeniably large and
energized as they have been are driven by those who are traditionally
hostile to PT. The number of people participating in these protests while
in the millions is dwarfed by the number (54 million) who voted to
re-elect Dilma less than two years ago. In a democracy, governments are
chosen by voting, not by displays of street opposition particularly where,
as in Brazil, the protests are drawn from a relatively narrow societal
segment.
As Winter reported: Last Sunday, when more than 1 million people took to
the streets, polls indicated that once again the crowd was significantly
richer, whiter, and more educated than Brazilians at large. Nolen similarly
reported: The half-dozen large anti-corruption demonstrations in the past
year have been dominated by white and upper-middle-class protesters, who
tend to be supporters of the opposition Brazilian Social Democratic Party
(PSDB), and to have little love for Ms. Rousseffs left-leaning Workers
Party.
Last weekend, when massive anti-Dilma protests emerged in most Brazilian
cities, a photograph of one of the families participating went viral, a
symbol of what these protests actually are. It showed a rich, white couple
decked out in anti-Dilma symbols and walking with their pure-breed dog,
trailed by their black weekend nanny wearing the all-white uniform many
rich Brazilians require their domestic servants to wear pushing a stroller
with their two children.
As Nolen noted, the photo became the emblem for the true, highly ideological
essence of these protests: Brazilians, who are deft and fast with memes,
reposted the picture with a thousand snarky captions, such as Speed it up,
there, Maria [the generic maid name], we have to get out to protest
against this government that made us pay you minimum wage.
To believe that the influential figures agitating for Dilmas impeachment
are motivated by an authentic anti-corruption crusade requires extreme
naïveté or willful ignorance. To begin with, the factions that would be
empowered by Dilmas impeachment are at least as implicated by corruption
scandals as she is: in most cases, more so.
Five of the members of the impeachment commission are themselves being
criminally investigated as part of the corruption scandal. That includes
Paulo Maluf, who faces an Interpol warrant for his arrest and has not been
able to leave the country for years; he has been sentenced in France to
three years in prison for money laundering. Of the 65 members of the House
impeachment committee, 36 currently face pending legal proceedings.
In the lower house of Congress, the leader of the impeachment movement, the
evangelical extremist Eduardo Cunha, was found to have maintained multiple
secret Swiss bank accounts, where he stored millions of dollars that
prosecutors believe were received as bribes. He is the target of multiple
active criminal investigations.
Meanwhile, Senator Aécio Neves, the leader of the Brazilian opposition who
Dilma narrowly defeated in the 2014 election, has himself been implicated at
least five separate times in the corruption scandal. One of the prosecutors
newest star witnesses just accused him of accepting bribes. That witness
also implicated the countrys vice president, Michel Temer, of the
opposition party PMDB, who would replace Dilma if she were impeached.
Then theres the recent behavior of the chief judge who has been overseeing
the corruption investigation and has become a folk hero for his commendably
aggressive investigations of some of the countrys richest and most powerful
figures. That judge, Sergio Moro, this week effectively leaked to the media
a tape-recorded, extremely vague conversation between Dilma and Lula, which
Globo and other anti-PT forces immediately depicted as incriminating. Moro
disclosed the recording of the conversation within hours of its taking
place.
Making Judge Moro into an idol contradicts a virtue he's supposed to
represent: the impersonality of institutions. pic.twitter.com/UdZaslh68M
Alex Cuadros (@alexcuadros) March 4, 2016
But the recorded conversation was released by Judge Moro with no due process
and, worse, with clearly political, not judicial, purposes: Namely, he was
furious that his investigation of Lula would be terminated by his
appointment to Dilmas cabinet (high officials can be investigated only by
the Supreme Court). His leak sought to embarrass Dilma and Lula and trigger
street protests, and thus provoked criticisms, even among his previous fans,
that he was now abusing his power by becoming a political actor. Worse, the
recording itself seems to have been illegally obtained since it was made
after the expiration of Judge Moros warrant. The head of Rio de Janeiros
bar association, Felipe Santa Cruz, called Moros actions a nauseating
embarrassment.
All of this raises the very clear danger that the criminal investigation and
impeachment process are not a legal exercise to punish criminal leaders, but
rather an anti-democratic political weapon wielded by political opponents to
remove a democratically elected president. That danger was even more starkly
highlighted yesterday when it was revealed that a judge who issued an order
blocking Lulas cabinet appointment by Dilma had days earlier posted to his
Facebook page numerous selfies of him marching in the anti-government
protest over the weekend. As Winter wrote, Convincing the public that the
Brazilian judiciary is at war with the Workers Party will be an easier
task than it was two weeks ago.
There is no question that PT is rife with corruption. There are serious
questions surrounding Lula that deserve an impartial and fair investigation.
And impeachment is a legitimate process in a democracy provided that the
targeted official is actually guilty of serious crimes and the law is
scrupulously followed in how the impeachment is effectuated.
But the picture currently emerging in Brazil surrounding impeachment and
these street protests is far more complicated, and far more ethically
ambiguous, than has frequently been depicted. The effort to remove Dilma and
her party from power now resembles a nakedly anti-democratic power struggle
more than a legally sound process or genuine anti-corruption movement.
Worse, its being incited, engineered, and fueled by the very factions who
are themselves knee-deep in corruption scandals, and who represent the
interests of the richest and most powerful societal segments long angry at
their inability to defeat PT democratically.
In other words, it all seems historically familiar, particular for Latin
America, where democratically elected left-wing governments have been
repeatedly removed by non-democratic, extra-legal means. In many ways, PT
and Dilma are not sympathetic victims. Large segments of the population are
genuinely angry at them for plainly legitimate reasons. But their sins do
not justify the sins of their long-standing political enemies, and most
certainly do not render subversion of Brazilian democracy something to
cheer.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
