Monthly Archives: August 2015

Brazil’s institutions do fight corruption, but people are still tolerant

After waves of colossal protests in 2013 and 2015, it is very tempting to say Brazilians are fed up with corruption and want real transparency and accountability for whatever is done in their name. That may hold true for well-educated and politically savvy people that are now reshaping the country’s institutions; judges, prosecutors, investigators, controllers, intelligence agents, technocrats… But that vast majority in Brazil actually cares too little. Organized society is disorganized and citizen engagement isn’t nearly as important as it is in developed nations. Unlike the protesting crowds suggest, Brazilians only care about corruption when it involves those they reject for other reasons.

A favorite among political leaders is to say that mechanisms against corruption have to be discussed with society. But on the sidelines they say it loud and clear: society rarely talks back. “Brazilians love to speak out when those scandals are on the news, but that is just a thing that they say,” an independent congresswoman once told me. “They say that they care, but they don’t even follow who they voted for. One of my colleagues is wanted by Interpol and he repeatedly gets reelected by many of those that want to fight corruption all the time. Brazil is doing better, but it is because of policy makers and political leaders, regrettably it is not because of voters. I wish that they cared.”

That comes from someone who works in the institution that best represents Brazilian tolerance towards corruption: our clearly unaccountable and proud of it Congress. Our senators and representatives are just as flawed as average people, who react to every new scandal with a scandalous meh. Indignation indeed cooks for very long until it bursts its bubble in Brazil. Accusations that would end careers of whips and speakers in other nations often “end in a pizza” here — that expression means no condemnation at all. Politicians caught red-handed will only resign if almost all their peers reject their presence. When it does happen, the process could take more than two months.

If voters cared more about corruption that would be solved presto.

Yes, Brazilians do protest now against the sensation of accumulated corruption. And some are willing to go to the streets against a political party they dislike when it is involved in a big scheme. But that outrage is selective. It is as if there were right-wing and left-wing crimes. People pick and choose what to protest against. That is why there is such a slow pace for public reaction against corruption cases; people start by thinking any accusation is both true and a result of partisanship. When the corrupt have more time to deal with charges, impunity tends to prevail. Maybe it would be different if there were a widespread sense of urgency coming from citizens.

If Brazilians cared enough about corruption there would be a bigger scrutiny on each of the more than 50 politicians involved in the current Petrobras scandal. Quite on the contrary. Most are simply ignored and carry on doing whatever they like. Some others are hailed as heroes. On the opposition side, there are many advocates for controversial speaker Eduardo Cunha, a man that has dozens and dozens of accusations against him — the fondness comes because he has the right to start an impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff. On the pro-government camp, many cherish former minister José Dirceu because he illegally acted as a lobbyist to constructors so he could embezzle funds for the Worker’s Party (PT). All these folks still take selfies with voters.

Dirceu is one of these exceptions to the rule, many people love to hate him. He cannot fly in commercial planes for the sheer risk of being attacked, as happened multiple times. But even in that case it has more to do with very partisan citizens taking action against a PT leader that was very powerful. The vast majority won’t have any idea of what the former Chief of Staff for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did — he was convicted for leading a kick-backs for political support scheme, but there is so much press for him that he has been accused of almost every crime. Other politicians that are as convicted as he is never get the same treatment. They can go anywhere they like. Opposition leaders that were caught are given the benefit of the doubt of their followers.

On the pro-government side that flawed anti-corruption vision is more evident now. Although they were very determined to call foul during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso years at the Palácio do Planalto (1995-2002), they just gave a pass to President Lula (2003-2010) whenever a scandal emerged. After all, they would suggest, what really mattered were the social programs and the economic development Brazil was experiencing. Those in the Worker’s Party who were keen on pointing all the crimes that leaders were involved in… Well, they were shown out. They could only do that because average people kept a high tolerance towards corruption. Now that the economic tide has changed, these fans channel some of their income frustrations in the debate about corruption.

At the same time that Brazil’s leaders managed to reinforce institutions and end the times in which the wealthy and privileged never got to see a jail from the inside, João Average only wanted to buy a new gigantic TV set. A TV set that he turns off when the news are on — it is such a downer… He is sure that there is corruption everywhere in government, but will only keep buzzwords on his mind, like Petrobras, mensalão, subway cartel. He might even go to protests. It could be that slightly left-wing one of two years ago or the right-wing ones of today. But that kind of presence has more to do with pre or post-election dissatisfaction than with an anti-corruption agenda. Not that people are for corruption, but they can’t elaborate an agenda to fight it.

That is why speaker Cunha remains unknown to many Brazilians and gets to keep his job despite the accusation of taking more than US$ 5 million from a lobbyist. He might be removed by the Supreme Court without a single protest in front of his house — and that is basically because the institutions are working.

Political ignorance surely isn’t a Brazilian exclusive, but here tolerance with corruption and ignorance walk hand in hand like in few places. To make their combat to corruption more effective, Brazil needs more than improving institutions; it needs people to mature in the political debate. One that observes the quality of the Brazilian public square can only conclude that real improvement and a change in the tolerance culture will take quite a while.

Brazil steers away from coup plot planned in the lower house

Days before protests scheduled for August 16, President Dilma Rousseff and her administration got a breather in Brasilia. Businessmen, politicians, Globo TV, part of the written press and — most importantly — the president of the Senate came to rescue. The coup agenda set by the speaker of the lower house, Eduardo Cunha, has frightened those that like the opposition better but would hate to see Brazil plunge in a political crisis with no end in sight. The cool down plan is now into action and turbulent days once expected for this month seem to be less and less likely. A dramatic measure that was unlikely now is almost touching the levels of impossible.

The first messages came from businessmen. When Cunha decided to target austerity measures to put Rousseff against the wall, they started to turn their backs on him. That began more than two months ago. In meetings held in São Paulo, the speaker was applauded by executives when he was present. But on the sidelines the trash talk went on and on and on — and many of those people truly dislike Rousseff’s technocratic style. When fiscal adjustments were torpedoed by the Rio de Janeiro politician, they decided not to pull the plug on the president. They know Brazil would lose its investment grade in the middle of such a big uncertainty.

That was even more evident in conversations with construction businessmen; they knew of Cunha’s highly suspicious role in negotiations that drove constructor Schahin to the ground. In Brazil, when constructors see a politician as someone not to be trusted… they have a much harder time to survive in the game. Some of those links are in Piaui magazine this month. There is much more, but without evidence I can’t publish how Cunha and Schahin became so tied together. I am still working on it. If those links become clear enough, the speaker will have a very hard time to keep his job. Who wants to have that person in the driving seat if Rousseff were ousted? Nobody.

After businessmen stated their case, mainstream media looked for ways to join in. More importantly, Globo TV decided to throw a rope to Rousseff because of two ratings. The first is the one of viewers that got depressed with insistent bad news and turned away. The second is their credit rating, which got lowered just a few weeks ago. Jornal Nacional, the only piece of journalism that reaches every Brazilian, banned the word “crisis” and started giving Rousseff a lot of time to explain herself. That is not an interpretation, it is a fact — as told me by a member of these operations.

That doesn’t mean Globo won’t cover the protests on Sunday, no matter how big they are. But, just like newspapers, Globo is determined to defend Brazil’s democracy at the same time it gives the opposition some material to charge against Rousseff — as long as her mandate is not touched. Folha de S.Paulo, O Globo and Estado de S.Paulo have printed editorials that also go in that direction, despite the obvious difficulties they have to report on Cunha’s activities. If new information arrives to involve Rousseff directly, they will be glad to go back to the pro-impeachment tendencies. But that is not in the picture now.

All these things have made cracks in the opposition. Defeated candidate Aecio Neves might be pulling for impeachment or resignation, but other key party members openly disagree. That includes former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, a presidential hopeful for 2018. Austerity measures used to speak to the heart of opposition members and to keep voting against them to help Cunha was a big political risk. In the Senate the retreat is obvious, in the lower house it isn’t that evident. But it might be very soon.

Those elements have led the president of the Senate, Renan Calheiros, to strike a deal with Rousseff so she can govern. As a man who could be indicted soon, he suddenly seems relaxed after his first private conversation with the president just days ago. The news that emerged from that conversation is that Calheiros won’t be in the first list of indicted politicians. But Cunha will… Of course the senator’s agenda is similar to that of very suspicious lobbyists, but the president doesn’t have much of a choice if she wants to survive. Now Calheiros and Cunha clash.

Calheiros also has a lot of influence in the audit court that will rule on Rousseff’s management of the budget in recent years. That very court, which had set the date for the trial for a little after the protests, now expects to do it just in the end of the month. Cunha has already shown he is annoyed by that decision, which sends a message on how worried he actually is about his political situation.

Surely enough there are still problems for Rousseff’s troubled administration, but this week ends in a better tone than all the others in the last months. Protesters might still come out in large numbers to demand her resignation (as of Thursday the mobilization for Sunday doesn’t seem to be gigantic). Some might even insist in the impeachment theories. And it is very unlikely that the president will recover anytime soon from her single digit popularity in her remaining 3.5 years left in office. But it seems that the worst days for Brazil’s young democracy as about to be gone.