by John Fitzpatrick

Brazilians often seem passive in the face of injustice and reluctant to take direct action to resolve matters. This is a trait which foreigners are quick to notice and find surprising. It is very difficult to explain to a foreign audience why voters, who are often extremely poor, will routinely re-elect millionaire politicians accused of serious crimes, generally involving corruption. However, there have been some recent welcome signs that the Brazilians´ patience is coming to an end. For example, popular resistance has forced Congressmen to backtrack on plans to award themselves a generous pay rise of 91%. In another case, direct action by passengers, infuriated at being delayed for days at airports, forced the government to try and sort out the crisis which has made air travel a nightmare over the last two months. Is it too much to hope that this rebellious spirit will continue in President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva´s second term of office?

Since Lula himself was re-elected with just over 60% of the vote despite allegations of corruption within his government, the answer is likely to be “no”. First of all, it must be stressed that, although opposition to the pay rise was universal, few people took to the streets in protest. There were some demonstrations by students and trade unionists in Brasilia and São Paulo but they were sparsely attended. The media and various professional organizations, as well as the Catholic Church, condemned the proposal which was overturned by a court ruling. In other words, the issue was (temporarily) settled by constitutional means rather than people power. One prominent politician, Antonio Carlos Magalhães Neto, was stabbed by a woman who claimed to be furious about the pay rise but it is not clear if this was really the case. This issue will re-emerge when Congress resumes in February 2007 but by then it will have lost its sting and we can be sure the Congressmen will find some craftier means to ensure they gain even more money and perks.

As for the passengers who invaded runways and check-in counters, theirs was a spur of the moment reaction caused by rage and not organized in any way. (They were like the lynch mobs which from time to time drag prisoners from custody or seize hit-and-run drivers and beat them to death.) The anti-Lula media has dubbed this crisis the “air blackout”, a reference to the energy crisis which arose in 2001 during the administration of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This is not a good comparison since the energy crisis affected every single individual and company in the country and lasted almost a year. Rationing was imposed across the board and consumers were penalized if they did not reduce consumption. In contrast, the air crisis has only affected a relatively small percentage of the population. Having said that, the issue has still not been properly addressed and the crisis could flare up the next time there is a mass movement of people, such as at New Year or Carnival time.

There are no obvious other current issues which could lead to direct popular action. Students in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have been trying to whip up popular discontent over rises in public transport fares but this campaign has not caught on. (One of the reasons is that most workers´ bus fares are paid by their employers.) Political scandals abound as usual. The latest Congressional investigation into the “bloodsucker” scandal was another cover-up. Only four of more than 70 elected representatives accused of involvement were singled out for further investigation yet the public has just shrugged it off.   

Despite this, a new public militancy cannot be ruled out entirely. People may be less prepared to give Lula the benefit of the doubt in his second term. Much of the media is still gunning for him and using his son´s business activities as an excuse. The ongoing investigations into the scandals which marked Lula´s first term may bring further revelations of wrongdoing.

There are also new scandals budding. For example, it has been revealed that the state governor of Mato Grosso do Sul, Jose Orcirio Miranda, has persuaded the legislative assembly to revive a law which will grant him a pension for life of R$22,100 a month (about US$10,000) when he hands over power on Jan 1, 2007. According to the Mato Grosso do Sul government site Miranda is only 56 and retired from the Banco do Brasil to become a political activist. The site does not say when he retired but he was elected to the state assembly in 1990 so it is possible that he “retired” when he was a mere 40 years old and presumably he has been receiving a pension since then. As if that were not enough, he is also trying to persuade the assembly to extend his pension rights to his wife on his death. Incidentally, Miranda is a member of the PT which is supposed to look after the interests of ordinary workers and not ex-state governors.  Once again this blatant greed will probably be overlooked but this is exactly the kind of case which could become the final straw that breaks the camel´s back. It is worth recalling that the “bribes-for-votes” scandal, known as the “mensalão”, arose when a minor Post Office official was secretly filmed pocketing a modest bribe of R$3,000.

This current apathy is puzzling since Brazilians have not always been a placid lot. Rebellion has been a constant element in the country´s turbulent history. Indians and black slaves fought back against their captors, nationalists revolted against the Portuguese crown, regional interests rebelled against the central government and republicans rebelled against the monarchy. The most famous uprising was at Canudos in Bahia in 1896 when thousands of peasants led by a religious fanatic defied the new republican regime for two years before being annihilated. The democratic system, which was gradually introduced in the 20th century, was constantly challenged and eventually overthrown. The military which seized control in 1964 was, in turn, confronted by rebellion – popular and political - and finally defeated. One of the Brazilian people´s finest hours came on January 25, 1984 when 300,000 people gathered in São Paulo´s Praça da Sé and demanded direct elections for the presidency. 

Despite this massive show of strength, the military managed to use its influence to block a direct vote but the people won in the end when the Congress voted in favor of the anti-military candidate, Tancredo Neves. Unfortunately, it was downhill after that. The story is too familiar to go into detail – Neves died before taking office and was replaced by his deputy, Jose Sarney, a former supporter of the military who had the legal but not the moral right to govern. He, in turn, was replaced by Fernando Collor de Mello who conned the people into thinking he would end the privileges of the “Mandarins”. Once in power, he proceeded to rob the public purse. When Collor was forced to resign as Congress opened impeachment proceedings, another weak vice president, Itamar Franco, took over. These first 10 years were not a good advertisement for democracy but thankfully there was no call for a return to military rule.

Perhaps it will take longer for democracy to take root and create an electorate which is more committed to obtaining its rights, ready to remind politicians of their responsibilities and punish them if they abuse their power. The reaction by the public we have seen in recent weeks may have been a small step in that direction.

© John Fitzpatrick 2006