Brazil’s crisis is a mix of corruption, smears, resentment and mal-governance

Brazil’s political crisis, which starts in our flawed party financing system and ends on the streets with people that don’t feel represented by politicians, is like an airplane crash; there isn’t just one element that explains it all. Those that try to make it that simple are either misinformed or biased. There are many fans of the ruling Worker’s Party that do that and, truth be said, even more in the opposition that are fond of the easy ways to put this complex moment in a small box. If I can give you two tips, they are steer away from those and never take what they say for the face value.

Of course the corruption scandal at Petrobras puts heavy popular pressure against President Dilma Rousseff and her coalition, but the criticism — often hatred too — has more sources. Critics are mostly in two trends: moderate opposition and disappointed Brazilians who try to base their opinions on facts and another of bizarre tropical McCarthyists that believe communism is about to take over. The first group will say the second is not the majority, but there are people in both claiming Rousseff should be impeached. That’s why it is so hard to tell them apart.

The scandal at Petrobras, which has impacted the state-oil for four terms of three different presidents, is the main driver of protesters. The corruption began under President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, got a massive boost in the two terms of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and remained untouched in the first two years of Rousseff’s first term. It is surely the most well documented scandal in Brazilian history, which could end up in dozens of politicians arrested. The vast majority are in the current coalition that she needs in Congress. Some are in the opposition too.

Some of the moderates and disappointed people want more than protests; they think Rousseff is directly linked to the scandal because she chaired the board of Petrobras when many of those bribes were paid. But chairing boards in state-owned companies is not a proper job, all ministers hold that position in at least one. The state-oil is surely the jewel of the crown, but the affairs are handled by their CEO. Not knowing of the scheme, both as Energy Minister who oversights Petrobras or later as Chief of Staff, surely discredits the current President’s good manager platform that reelected her. Still not a link between her and the corruption.

Many others, including a some in the protests, will agree ousting Rousseff would be a coup and target their message as a “no to all the political establishment” — and that is why many key opposition members are not seizing the moment on the streets too. In a way, those are like the June 2013 movement; no clear leaders, no clearly obtainable agenda. They are more of a group that wants to let it all out because they think Brazil has tolerated too much corruption. Those are probably the people that the President will have to hear the most, since the hardcore opposition fans won’t talk to her.

Some will argue that not being aware of such a titanic corruption scheme is enough to impeach Rousseff. No, it isn’t. Our Constitution would only allow that extreme measure if the misdeed or negligence had taken place during her presidential term. Since that is not a possibility at the moment, the McCarthyists insist that the military intervenes to save Brazil from this former guerrillawoman who has as her finance minister a man who went to liberalism Mecca — the University of Chicago. The right-wing wackos lie about that intervention being a Constitutional possibility, and some do fall for that.

It is important to bear in mind that some that defend the military intervention use the corruption scandal as an excuse to put their resentments out. Rousseff, a woman who was arrested and tortured by the dictatorship (1964-1985), installed a Commission of Truth to look into the crimes committed by regime. It was just to tell the full story, not to punish. That is too much for some. In São Paulo, protesters championed a man who was close to one of the most prominent torturers. In Rio, in a more positive note, organizers managed to hide the mic from a military maniac Congressman.

The scandal at Petrobras could amount to billions and billions, and it is enough for people to take the streets. But bear in mind that the revolt is more comprehensive and… selective. Also in São Paulo, an opposition stronghold, a massive international corruption scandal involving Alstom trains didn’t even get traction. Many of Rousseff’s critics on Paulista Avenue were open fans of Paulo Maluf, a former mayor that cannot leave Brazil; Interpol wants him arrested for embezzling public funds. With the help of anti-Worker’s Party, he has been a Congressman for many mandates.

So why weren’t there anti-corruption protests of that scale in 2005 when the kickbacks for votes in Congress scandal under President Lula came out? Why didn’t people rebel after Brazilian media accused President Cardoso of buying votes in Congress to change the Constitution so he could run again in 1998? Why didn’t protesters last Sunday target the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate, since both are about to be indicted in the same Petrobras corruption scandal?

That seems to do with two things: Brazil’s economy is not in great shape and the recently finished presidential election was the most bitter the country has ever had.

In number one, the blame does belong to Rousseff. Zero growth is something Brazil should have stepped out of after all the improvements of the last 20 years. When Cardoso’s administration was accused of buying votes, he was the man that stabilized Brazil’s economy. When Lula’s administration was accused of buying political support, he was the man giving poor Brazilians a chance. Now that Rousseff’s administration is accused of the same, she doesn’t have any economic improvements to counterbalance. Most of the resilient good figures come from years ago — unemployment is still low for our standards and reserves are still high, despite all the fiscal deficits she ran into.

In number two, she fought a fierce battle to remain in office. In her case, that meant burning some bridges with important business leaders and unions and using propaganda that was appealing to the left, which is now frustrated and not coming to rescue. Rousseff and her main adversary Aecio Neves hit each other very hard for weeks — very often with lies and smears coming from both sides. In 2010, as the clear front-runner, she excused herself from a violent battle against opposition’s José Serra, who decided to be violent anyway. Some of the mire of four years ago plus the recent one still hit Rousseff, with absurd accusations that I won’t repeat.

What is next will depend on how Rousseff reacts in the coming weeks. She has taken good steps by saying she respects protesters, but will only have a dialogue with those that want to talk. Not many on the streets wil do that. But the vast majority were not on the streets; they were home watching. It is their perception in that mix of corruption, smears, resentment and mal-governance that will determine how deep Brazil’s political crisis will go.

Brazil’s opposition plays with impeachment as if it were a walk in the park

President Dilma Rousseff narrowly won the elections in October last year. Her cabinet is very likely the worst ever. The titanic corruption scandal at Petrobras will deprive her from important aides, ministers, key Congressmen and Senators. Perhaps even her Vice President. The economy is bound for another sluggish growth cycle and all that her Finance minister can think of is cutting expenses. She has had clear difficulties in dealing with politicians and in being more proactive in her second term. Sounds like bad governance. Still not enough for Brazil’s opposition to suggest she should be impeached.

No, there is no link between Rousseff and any of the corruption cases in the media these days. It is nothing like the days in which former President Fernando Collor got thrown away from office, in 1992. But there are opposition members who mention the I word as if her being involved were a given. It is actually far from that. The Petrobras a scandal dates back to when opposition’s Fernando Henrique Cardoso was president. It got a major boost under her predecessor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. It surely ran unopposed in the first two years of the incumbent’s first term. But it was a decision of hers in 2012 that stopped it.

Still, some opposition politicians and activists (including many in the press and in the business community) speak of impeachment as if it were just a matter of finding the right way to frame Rousseff. Generic accusations of her not stopping the scheme before or being unaware of it have gained traction as a reason to dethrone her. The 3 million vote advantage she had seems meaningless to a growing number of Brazilians who went for the opposition. Neither does it matter the fact that those next in line are much more likely to be deeply entrenched in the scandal — the speaker of the House, the chairman of the Senate, the Vice President…

For now there are more threats and excited wackos than proper initiatives to take Rousseff out. But it could quickly escalate to something else if the voices of reason remain low — and they have been surprisingly low in the last couple of months. On March 15th there will be a march in favor of the president’s impeachment with the tacit approval of the opposition. Newspaper columnists have argued for and against it without taking much into account the sheer fact there is no direct link between the president and the scandal. A direct link; it takes that for a Brazilian president to be impeached, as our history shows.

So what does the opposition want? Firstly there is a line that separates the two main contenders in the opposition for 2018. Defeated candidate Aecio Neves is playing the role of sore loser and say no to all, by organizing forces in Congress to keep the impeachment talk going. He needs to have some attention in the next few years since he doesn’t have a powerful state to govern anymore (he had Minas Gerais until recently). On the other side is a man full of suggestions of moderation, São Paulo governor Geraldo Alckmin. He interprets the guy who won’t jump on board with impeachment because it levels the field in his party.

The group that is more seen is obviously the most vocal one. It is hard to say they don’t want a coup, since they are playing their cards accordingly, although in a very early stage. But the better deal for those seems to be to wear former President Lula out so he has less leverage in a more and more likely candidacy for the Palácio do Planalto. To be competitive then, Neves needs Lula to admit, openly or not, that he made a mistake in appointing Rousseff as his successor. Alckmin does better if Rousseff doesn’t do so well, but he has had Brazil’s powerhouse state for the last 20 years — that won’t change until the next elections. Impeachment doesn’t help him.

Wackos that will take to the streets will be counted. Opposition leaders have said nothing against their march and even tolerate those who want the military to come back to power. By March 15 everyone will know who are the 54 people listed in the Petrobras corruption scandal — the vast majority of those are politicians, some are in the opposition too. The divide that was formed in the last elections might go even deeper. But depending on who is shamed by Brazil’s Attorney-General, there can be a boost to the impeachment talk. It is no walk in the park, but those who lost the election seem keen to go that way if they can.

P.S. – Thanks for your patience, it has been long without your company and I surely missed it. I couldn’t keep up with my weekly posts because I was taking part of the very intense and U.S. State Department sponsored International Visitors Leadership Program. My group was focused on transparency and accountability and the main reason I was chosen for this was your interest in this blog. That means I have to thank you for giving me this amazing experience. I mean it. Unfortunately I can’t tell much about our interesting meetings in DC, LA, Sacramento and Dallas — it is all off the record.