Selective Democracy: How Brazilian Authorities Choose To Hear Their People According To Convenience

              (Translation: “Parliamentarians have a cocktail inside the House of Representatives, while protesters and the police are in conflict outside”)

It is no secret to the global community that Brazil has been dealing with intense political turmoil for years. With a young and fragile democracy that was restored with the elections of 1989, marking the definitive end of an over twenty-decade long military dictatorship, Brazilians have since seen two of their elected presidents be impeached.

The latest impeachment process, on the case of the first Brazilian female president, Dilma Rousseff, was tainted with widespread sexism and hate speech across all social media platforms, classroom discussions and bar conversations. Dilma, the Worker’s Party (PT) candidate, who was indicated by her colleague, Lula (also from PT), represented the maintenance and continuance of his government (2003-2006, 2007-2010) that catered to the poor and the working people. She was elected in 2010, with 56% of votes in the second round against her right wing opponent, José Serra (PSDB), and then reelected in 2014, with a smaller advantage of 51% against Aécio Neves (PSDB).

Over Dilma’s second mandate, the Federal Police of Brazil launched Operação Lava Jato, or Operation Car Wash. With the objective of exposing money laundering and bribes exchanged for contracts with construction firms at inflated prices associated with Brazil’s biggest public oil company, Petrobras, the operation has opened 1434 investigations, out of which 188 resulted in imprisonment since its commencement in 2014. Names all across the political spectrum in Brazil were cited – from right wing governors to left wing representatives. The massive infected wound of corruption that had long been swept under the carpet was, for the first time, exposed. But it is far, far from healing.

As the operation went further, and politicians from PT went under investigation, opposition from the Brazilian right wing grew stronger and political polarizations deepened. After the major political protests of 2013, provoked by an increase in public transportation fees, the opposition took advantage of the anti-corruption sentiment as a way to appeal to the masses. They took people’s generalized political indignation, motivated by corrupt politicians from all parties, and twisted it into hatred towards the left. This boiling crockpot of chaos culminated with substantial mobilization from the anti-PT masses (composed mostly by the elite and the middle classes) in early 2016. Thousands – including notably corrupt politicians and supposedly impartial judges – took to the streets in hopes of deposing a president that wasn’t (and, to this day, hasn’t) been accused of directly associating with any of the several corruption scandals that have taken place in Brazil. Scandals that many of the politicians who declared themselves pro-impeachment, under the argument that Dilma’s government was marked by incompetence and corruption, played major roles in. The mainstream Brazilian media, that is monopolized by six families and has historically supported former coups against the left, including the military coup of ‘64, portrayed the manifestations as heroic claims for democracy and justice – while simultaneously downsizing the dimension of the anti-impeachment manifestations. Countless pages across Facebook called for people to slam their pans as a form of protest in a harmonic ‘panelaço’ as a plea for Dilma’s impeachment. And, rest assured, their voices – and cooking paraphernalia – were indeed heard.

Protests bolstered when former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Eduardo Cunha, that has since lost his seat and been barred from politics for eight years for stashing over $1m worth of illegal kickbacks in a secret Swiss bank account, allowed for prosecution to proceed. The denouncement was not on corruption, yet on ‘fiscal pedaling’, which is using state-run funds to pay for the government’s regular expenses, like benefits. Though it has been practiced by other former Brazilian presidents and never been the basis of an impeachment, this, under Brazilian law, is illegal.

Then came the voting of the House of Representatives on whether or not the process of impeachment should continue AKA the most entertaining six hours ever aired on Brazilian television. Honestly, telenovelas could never. Although hilarious and filled with many memes, the voting exposed the tragic reality of Brazilian politics. Incompetence. Unprofessionalism. Hypocrisy. With speeches averaging at around 70 seconds, which greatly exceeds the permitted time of 30 seconds, many of enthusiastic pro-impeachment representatives put on an actual show. Some waved the Brazilian flag, some threw confetti, and some wished their daughters a happy birthday. Others, like extreme right wing representative, Jair Bolsonaro, took it up a notch and saluted former torturers from the military dictatorship. The torturer mentioned, Colonel Brilhante Ustra, tortured Dilma Rousseff in the 70s for opposing to the dictatorship and has since been accused of committing several crimes against humanity during his torture sessions, including shoving rats up women’s genitals.

Most depositions, however, weren’t as “extravagant”. They were pretty homogeneous, with a similar rhetoric of “in the name of the people”. Instead of discussing over whether or not the impeachment had legal basis – that is, if Dilma did in fact commit an offense – they spoke of her government big picture wise, saying that the people in the streets had spoken and Brazilians weren’t satisfied with Dilma or PT. That, of course, after 40 seconds of dedicating their votes to their children and wives and parents and cousins and friends and pets, etc. It would sound pretty democratic, had it not been for the fact that you can’t really impeach a president for perceived incompetence. That’s called a soft coup.

After the continuation of the impeachment process was approved in the House of Representatives with 367 in favor, 137 against and 7 abstentions, and, further down, in the Senate, Dilma’s former Vice-President Michel Temer, who has been cited in Lava Jato in several instances and has been declared unelectable for an electoral infraction, took over. He, who is deeply rejected by the Brazilian left for revealing himself very pro-impeachment, has since taken plenty of measures that go completely against Rousseff’s agenda. One of the first to cause controversy was a proposal to reform to the Brazilian high school system, removing Sociology, Philosophy, Physical Education and Arts from the mandatory curriculum. Besides neglecting the importance of exercise and creative expression in a teenager’s life, the central argument against this maneuver is that it seems reminiscent of a time when social studies were utterly forbidden: the military dictatorship (yet again!). Though Temer affirms this will better prepare high schoolers for the job market by specializing them at an early age, many have interpreted this as a fascist tactic of alienation.

The one that has stirred the most turbulence, however, is called PEC 55, formerly known as PEC 241. This Proposed Constitutional Amendment promises to freeze investments on health and education for 20 years. In an attempt to “correct inflation” and “remediate the economical crisis”, Temer plans on cutting expenses on two of the most needy sectors of Brazilian society. Meanwhile, the poor, who can’t afford private healthcare and depend on the public health system to survive, die while waiting to be treated at precarious hospitals every year because there isn’t enough equipment or staff to cater to every single patient in need. Students who attend public schools and universities are left with no classes to attend, because the government can’t afford materials or paying for teachers’ salaries, which coerces public educators into endless strikes. Although this scenario has become a lot less drastic in the past decade, Temer plans on entirely erasing Lula and Dilma’s legacy. Over the next twenty years.

This is seen by the masses as a stunt to make the workers and the poor pay – perhaps with their lives – for a critical economical situation that was NOT caused by too much investment on social services, yet by the overwhelming piles of money that have fled from public funds into politicians’ private accounts. In suma, while social inequality in Brazil becomes even more abyssal, the top 1% remains untouched.

“Brazil is in crisis, somebody has to pay the bill. Michel Temer is taking over so that the workers and the poor will pay (…)”

foreshadowed Gregorio Duvivier, notorious left-wing writer and actor, in early 2016 in an interview for Portuguese news broadcast, SIC Notícias.

In response to it being approved in the first round at the House of Representatives, thousands of students, teachers and civil servants held protests in 15 states all over Brazil. Social media was plastered with thousands of posts that manifested the public rejection of PEC 55. Students, motivated by lack of investment, the high school reform and the Proposed Constitutional Amendment, occupied schools and universities and interrupted classes as a form of protest. Surprisingly, despite all of the post-impeachment hype, a fair share of anti-PT folk declared itself against the Amendment. Even Datafolha, a polling institute that is oftentimes considered to have a right wing bias, published a research that stated over 60% of the population does not agree with Temer’s measure.

In spite of the colossal negative backlash, PEC 55 was approved in the second round of the House of Representatives, then in both rounds in the Senate and finally promulgated by the Congress, making it Constitutional Amendment number 95.

The irony of it all is that Temer only came into power through a narrative of attending to the wish of the people who so desperately wanted Dilma to be gone. During the impeachment voting at the House of Representatives, where representatives were to ONLY discuss the legal stands of the impeachment, they justified their votes according to the population’s will. However, just six months later, when it came to voting on PEC 55 and they had the opportunity to stand by their oath to abide to Brazilians’ demands, which they had sold to the people as a utopia of justice and democracy, they simply didn’t. They didn’t because the approval of the PEC aligned with their interest of solving the crisis in a way they wouldn’t be affected. They told their people: “Brazil needs your sacrifice”, but it’s just so they don’t have to.

Recent events make it quite evident that, in Brazil, political restlessness has become the status quo. And the future doesn’t look so bright either. With a president like Michel Temer, who represents the perpetuation of an aristocratic, oligarchic and self-serving government, and his likeminded minions infesting all branches of power, it appears that Brazilians are far from seeing the democracy they were so excited to “attain” after deposing Dilma.