Using Democratic Institutions to Smash Democratic Aspirations (the Brazil Model)
June 20, 2019
Clarity emerges around the political persecution of Lula, Brazil’s former
president. But what is still blurry for many is the actual case against him,
writes Vijay Prashad.
By Vijay Prashad
Tricontinental: Institute
for Social Research
Brazil’s former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has now been in prison
since April 2018. More than 400 Brazilian lawyers have signed a statement that
expresses alarm at what they see as procedural irregularities in the case
against him. They call for the immediate release of Lula. The Asociación
Americana de Juristas – a non-governmental organization with consultative
status at the United Nations – has called Lula a political prisoner. Lula was
convicted of corruption and money-laundering, despite a lack of solid evidence.
Two lawsuits against him remain unfinished.
Now, more evidence emerges about the collusion of the lead judge and the lead
investigator in the prosecution of Lula thanks to excellent reporting from The
Intercept. The political motivations are now on the record: they, on behalf of
the oligarchy, did not want Lula – who remains hugely popular – to be the 2018
presidential candidate of the Workers’ Party (PT). Brazil’s right-wing has
begun a horrible campaign to malign the journalists of The Intercept, notably
its editor Glenn Greenwald. Using the same tactics of hate, misogyny, and
homophobia to defame their journalists, they hope, will distract from and
delegitimise the damning evidence of their corrupt tactics.
Clarity now emerges around the political persecution of Lula. But what is still
blurry for many is the actual case against him. The details of his case remain
murky, with many who sympathise with Lula unsure of how to understand the
corruption charges and his apparent conviction. This newsletter is dedicated to
providing a primer on Lula and the case against him.
Who is Lula?
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (73 years old), a metalworker and trade union leader,
helped found the PT, Brazil’s main left party. He won two consecutive elections
to govern Brazil from 2003 to 2010. At the close of his second term, Lula had
an approval rating of 86 percent – the highest in the country’s history. His
poverty reduction programs – particularly his hunger alleviation schemes –
earned his government praise from around the world, which is why some are
calling for him to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Income
redistribution through social programs such as Bolsa Família, Brasil sem
Miseria, the expansion of credit, the increase in decent work, and the increase
in the minimum wage lifted almost 30 million (out of 209 million) Brazilians
out of poverty. The number of public university campuses more than doubled,
leading to a 285 percent increase in Afro-Brazilians attending institutes of
higher education. Brazil paid off its debts to the IMF and the government
discovered a massive new oil reserve in the Santos Basin, off the coast of São
Paulo. This oil will eventually change Brazil’s strategic position in the world.
Paul Guiragossian, “La Vendeuse de Fleurs”, 1985.
Why was Lula arrested?
There are two narratives that exist to answer this question. The first— the
official narrative, propagated by the bourgeoise— is that Lula is in prison on
charges of corruption and money laundering. His cases remain pending before the
courts. Curitiba’s Public Prosecutor’s Office – led by Deltan Dallagnol – was
in charge of an investigation around corruption allegations at Brazil’s state
energy firm, Petrobras. Because a car wash became part of the money laundering
investigation, the Task Force was known as Lava Jato (Car Wash). The Task Force
uncovered activity by contractors such as OAS and Odebrecht, who had – it turns
out – remodelled an apartment on the coast and a farm in the interior that were
supposedly owned by Lula. These firms, it was said by the Task Force, had
gained concessions from Petrobras. The Task Force argued that Lula benefited
from the contractors, who in turn benefitted from state largess. This was the
allegation. The second narrative — further substantiated by recent reporting
from The Intercept of collusion between the main judges in the case against
Lula — shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated attempt to
stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the
country’s progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges
against Lula were manufactured in order to recover the right-wing’s control of
the government, despite a lack of evidence against him.
Lola Alvarez Bravo, “Unos Suben y Otros Bajan,” 1940.
Is there evidence against Lula?
Actually, no. The prosecutors could not prove that Lula had ever owned the
apartment or the farm. Nor could they prove any benefit to the contractors.
Lula was convicted – bizarrely – of unspecified acts. Former OAS director Léo
Pinheiro, who had been convicted of money laundering and corruption in 2014 and
was to serve 16 years, gave evidence against Lula; for this evidence, his
sentence was reduced. There was no material evidence against Lula.
Who convicted Lula?
Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister
of justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that
Bolsonaro won the election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro’s
conviction delivered the presidency to Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with
the ministry appointment. Moro not only tried Lula in his court, but also in
the court of public opinion. The corporate media was on the side of the
prosecution, and leaks from the court created an image of Lula as the enemy of
the people. Bizarrely, the press often seemed to have information from the
court before Lula’s defence attorneys. When Lula’s lawyers filed a habeas
corpus petition to get him out of jail, the army’s commander-in-chief sent the
Supreme Court a message on Twitter to instructing them not to grant the
petition. The petition was denied.
Yutaka Takanashi, “Tokyo-jin,” 1983.
Should Lula have been allowed to run for president?
The Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure says that one can only go to prison
when their appeals run out. Article 5 of the Constitution notes,”No one shall
be considered guilty before the issuance of a final and unappealable prison
sentence.” Why Lula went to jail in the first place requires an investigation.
Judge Moro argued that it was because he was found guilty in the Appeal Court
based on a plea bargain. This is murky. The UN’s Human Rights Committee said
that Lula should have been allowed to run for president last year because his
appeals had not been exhausted. Not only did the judiciary and the prosecutors
not allow Lula to run, but they also did not allow him to meet the press and so
influence the election.
What has been the role of the United States in the Lava Jato investigation?
Odd how the US Department of Justice officials visited Judge Moro during the
investigation, and how US Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco said in
2017 that the U.S. justice officials had “informal communications” about the
removal of Lula from the presidential race. On 6 March 2019, the U.S.
Department of Justice said that it would transfer 80 percent of the fines it
received from Petrobras to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to set up an
“anti-corruption investment fund.” It is fair to say that this is a payment to
the Lava Jato team for its work on removing Lula from the presidential race.
Gustav Klimt, “Death and Life,” 1910.
What was the real corruption in this case?
Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato
team led by Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and
scrutinized by a range of forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the
judge and the prosecutor colluded to find Lula guilty and lock him away. The
first instance of corruption is this brazen collusion between two parts of the
government. The second instance of corruption is the role of the United States
in this case, and the pay-out to Dallagnol’s department for services rendered.
The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely
about Brazil. This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have
sought to use the shell of democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of
the people. It is the methodology of democracy without democracy, a Potemkin
Village of liberalism.
At Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, we are studying this
phenomenon closely. You have already seen our dossier on the hybrid war against
Venezuela and our dossier on lawfare in Brazil. The arrest of human rights
defenders from Julian Assange to Ola Bini as well as the arrest of
whistle-blowers from Chelsea Manning to David McBridge are part of this
chilling effect against the sentinels of democracy.
We are taking seriously this evisceration of democracy. We are going to look at
the role of money in elections (test case: India) and voter suppression, as
well as the reduction of ‘politics’ to the festival of elections, the allowance
of states to crush the basic institutions of civil society, and the role of
immiseration in the defeat of the democratic spirit. We need a new theory of
actually-existing democracy.
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, journalist, commentator and a Marxist
intellectual. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for
Social Research and the chief editor of LeftWord Books.
This article is from Tricontinental.
image_pdfimage_print
166
Tags: Brazil Democracy Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva The Intercept Vijay Prasad
Post navigation
← Annexation: Israel Already Controls More Than Half of the West Bank
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
