|
 Indictment, Brazilians have learned, does not mean
conviction, and as similar cases pile up, the feeling that prevails
is one of powerlessness against impunity. The new
Senate scandal has the potential to bring about that
key missing detail: punishment for the guilty, regardless of who they are.
By Adhemar Altieri
Thursday, May 03: shades of the World Cup Soccer Finals as Brazilians gathered around
TV sets in store windows, appliance outlets and public places where projection screens
were set up. But it wasn't a soccer match they wanted a glimpse of—in fact,
the current edition of Brazil's national squad is so frail there's talk it may not qualify
for next year's World Cup. The unlikely object of so much attention was the live telecast
of an unprecedented occasion in Brasília: a three-way confrontation between the accused
in a violation of the Senate automated voting system last year.
It was hoped the confrontation, before the Senate Ethics Committee, would sort out
differences in the versions told by the three involved and help get to the truth.
This highly unusual event brought together two senators—the high-powered
former government ally Antonio Carlos Magalhães and the government's former Senate
leader, José Roberto Arruda, plus the head of PRODASEN, the Senate Data Processing
Department, Regina Borges. The latter is quickly becoming a media star of sorts, for
admitting to wrongdoing under pressure from her superiors whom, she claims, wanted a list
with results of that secret voting session—one where the first-ever expulsion
was passed in the Senate's 174-year history. Seems someone wanted to know which senators
were prepared to spare Luis Estevão, who was expelled for his part in the disappearance
of R$169 million (about US$80 million) in funds meant for construction of a new labor
court building in São Paulo.
Borges repeated her original story, as told in an earlier deposition—a
story which 99 of 100 Brazilians and the overwhelming majority in the media believe to be
the truth. She says Senator Arruda approached her before the vote in question, asked her
to obtain from the computerized system a list indicating how votes were cast, and claimed
to be making the request on behalf of Senator Magalhães, who at the time was Senate
President and Borges' boss. During the confrontation, Magalhães left Arruda out in the
cold, saying he never asked or authorized Arruda or anyone to use his name to obtain the
list. For his part, Arruda insisted he only did what he did because he was given the green
light to do so by Magalhães.
Borges explained that the Senate voting system had to be altered for the list to be
produced, and this was done on the night before the vote. On the following day, she handed
Arruda a printout indicating how each senator had voted. Arruda took the list to
Magalhães, and both senators admit to seeing the results. Magalhães then phoned Borges
in Arruda's presence, to thank her and assure her no harm would come her way for producing
the list. Magalhães inadvertently brought the incident out of the backrooms, when he told
federal prosecutors he had such a list. The conversation was taped and the dialogue
published by the weekly newsmagazine Isto É. That led to an investigation, which
forced Borges to disclose what she knew. Magalhães claims he later destroyed the list.
Nearly eight hours of questioning left the distinct impression that the two senators
were working hard to save their own hides, while Borges, once again, came out looking like
the only one telling the truth. She never wavered, nor were there inconsistencies in her
explanations, which wasn't the case with the two senators. If all follows the letter of
the law, Borges will be punished and possibly lose her job and future benefits as a public
servant, while the two senators should face expulsion.
Much has been said and written about this entire episode with the intent of depicting
the ongoing Senate incident as further proof of progress in the battle to fight and expose
official wrongdoing in Brazil. The fact two high-profile senators are among the accused
reinforces that view. And, in truth, such deeds have become public with increasing
frequency, as a direct result of a combination of factors. These include a shrinking state
presence in the economy because of privatizations and cutbacks, which reduces spaces and
"opportunities" for the corrupt to act, and forces them into the open more
easily; an unrestrained and competitive news media which pursues such cases with intensity
and at times exaggerated vigor; and growing pressure from a society that slowly but surely
is learning its role, and is far less tolerant with behavior considered "normal"
among politicians and government officials only a handful of years ago.
The downside is that once again, Brazil is staring at a defining moment in so many ways—defending
institutions, fighting corruption, eliminating "old style" politics to name a
few—without any certainty that there will, indeed, be a follow-through.
Exposing wrongdoers has become almost habitual since the downfall of President Fernando
Collor de Mello, who resigned in 1992 to avoid impeachment on serious corruption charges.
Brazilians are rightfully proud of the fact they are one of the very few people in the
world who removed a president entirely "by the book", without bending the rules
or resorting to an overthrow. Countless others have since been exposed for wrongdoing, by
the media and through government and parliamentary investigations. But one would be
extremely hard pressed to come up with a single name, just one so many accused, who has in
fact been convicted and is repaying society in any way—let alone with a jail
term.
So while Brazilians watched with great interest as someone like Antonio Carlos
Magalhães fought to salvage a controversial 50-year political career on live television,
and found it interesting that out of two senators and a civil servant, only the employee
seemed to display any credibility, they also remembered that President Collor de Mello was
equally exposed and thrashed. His misdeeds were duly explained in their most minute
details, he was publicly condemned and execrated, and he was forbidden from seeking
elected office for eight years. But for so many alleged acts of corruption, which led to
his downfall, he has faced no punishment whatsoever. Much like numerous others who have
been so exposed in recent years. Indictment, Brazilians have learned, does not mean
conviction, and as similar cases pile up, the feeling that prevails is one of
powerlessness against impunity.
This is why the current Senate scandal is being watched so carefully. It has the
potential to bring about that key missing detail: punishment for the guilty, regardless of
who they are, or how much power they wield in political or business circles. Magalhães
has thrived in Brazilian politics as a master in the art of staying close to power.
Controversial, volatile and ill-tempered at the best of times, he is both envied by those
who believe he represents efficiency and personal success in politics, and hated by the
many he has displaced and harmed in true bulldozer style. Always viewed as an untouchable,
he now has his back to the wall, and what happens to him now will help determine whether
Brazil is in fact progressing past impunity—a key obstacle in its social and
political development.
Already, Magalhães supporters in Congress are working hard to negotiate a way out that
would see him receive only a temporary ban—one that would end early enough to
keep him eligible for the 2002 elections, when he plans to run for Governor of Bahia
state. At the same time, his cohorts are using every procedural move available to delay
the process. This is typical old-style politicking: they count on a frustrated public,
which starts out believing no harm will come to someone like Magalhães to begin with, and
grows more frustrated as the case drags on and no punishment is announced. In this way,
pressure from the public peters out. And all of this is quite public, with details of
backroom negotiations and the pro-Magalhães "strategy" covered daily by the
media.
Should Magalhães walk away unscathed, it will necessarily be the end result of a broad
agreement in the Senate, which will also let off Arruda—a lightweight whose
recent fame stemmed from the fact he was named government leader. Ironically, this
"deal" would make it a threesome: current Senate President Jader Barbalho, an
arch-rival of Magalhães under heavy pressure because of numerous charges of corruption,
would also expect some relief. If this hair-raising scenario actually materializes, the
Brazilian Senate might as well shut down for good. It wouldn't be left with enough
credibility to approve which carpet cleaning company should care for its deep blue shags.
An added entanglement involves Arruda. The following question is being asked
repeatedly: as government leader, is it conceivable that he had in his hands a list,
indicating how senators voted in a key secret session—a list which he knew was
obtained by illegal means—and yet, he said nothing to President Fernando
Henrique Cardoso? Arruda claims he didn't mention it, which is to be expected, but the
question remains… is it conceivable that the president's man in the Senate would not
mention a matter like this at all?
This detail not only threatens to open a whole new investigative front, but strengthens
arguments in favor of a sweeping parliamentary inquiry into government corruption.
Proponents have named nineteen instances that should be investigated, a fact used by the
government to argue that such an unfocused inquiry is really meant to be a pre-election
(2002) grandstand for the opposition. Although there have been small shows of public
support for the inquiry, there has certainly not been an outcry in favor of it. And it
seems clear why: Brazilians have had it with charges and accusations, big names exposed,
indictments and subsequent intricate court procedures to keep things at a standstill. This
is not to say that alleged acts of corruption shouldn't be properly investigated, but as
proposed, the opposition inquiry would seem to lead to more of the same: plenty of noise,
detailed exposés, names and amounts stolen, but no convictions.
As a television commentator quipped last week, chicken thieves are the only ones who
continue to go to jail in Brazil. So, more than just another defining moment, the Senate
scandal might just be the one—"the" defining moment, because of the
people involved, its ramifications, and the expectations it has raised among the public.
There is a soccer-related analogy after all: much like what's been happening with Brazil's
once feared World Cup soccer team, opportunities are being created but goals are not being
scored. The crowd has had it with close calls and near misses, and wants to see at least
one ball clearly in the net, in the form of one high-profile wrongdoer properly punished.
The still unpunished former President Collor de Mello by the way, has now regained his
political rights. Expect to see him as a candidate in next year's elections.
Related sites:
Brazilian Senate (Portuguese Only) http://www.senado.gov.br
Adhemar Altieri is a veteran with major news outlets in Brazil, Canada
and the United States. He holds a Master's Degree in Journalism from Northwestern
University in Evanston, Illinois, and spent ten years with CBS News reporting from Canada
and Brazil. Altieri is a member of the Virtual Intelligence Community, formed by The
Greenfield Consulting Group to identify future trends for Latin America. He is also the
editor of InfoBrazil (http://www.infobrazil.com),
an English-language weekly e-zine with analysis and opinions on Brazilian politics and
economy. You can reach the author at editors@infobrazil.com
Send
your
comments to
Brazzil
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed