• Categories
  • Archives

Wild Bunch

A nationwide truckers’ strike that resulted in the blockade of several major highways
throughout Brazil at the end of July, spoke volumes about much more than problems
affecting the trucking industry. Few would disagree with the truckers’ demands: lower fuel
prices and toll charges, better highway maintenance, and more policing against cargo
theft, a serious problem on Brazilian highways in recent years. It’s what the truckers’
action represents in a broader context that causes concern.

Rallies and demonstrations were a risky undertaking in Brazil until the end of military
rule in the mid ’80s. Participants and their causes were generally portrayed by the regime
as less-than legitimate, if not outright criminal. Such movements, labor or otherwise,
were often dealt with in violent fashion. With the return of civilian rule in 1985,
Brazilians gradually shed the aura of illegality created by the military, and re-learned
that demonstrating is part of one’s right to freedom of expression, not necessarily a
criminal act against the State or a breach of national security, as the uniformed rulers
of the past would have everyone believe.

Now, Brazilians are witnessing the other extreme, and at times being held hostage by
it: a concept that says a rally must disturb, paralyze, interfere, upset or interrupt as
broadly as possible, in order to be effective. Most troubling is the impression that
nobody seems concerned about the need to accomplish goals without trampling on everyone
else’s individual rights.

That was clearly the case with the truckers’ movement. It was the latest in a series of
similar actions by different groups, some isolated, others ongoing and growing in stature,
and they all fit into a trend. All have been loyal to the extreme approach to
demonstrations on the rise for at least a year, especially in São Paulo, Brazil’s main
city and economic engine.

With a population of 15 million, the city is difficult enough to negotiate under normal
circumstances—pollution, crime and monstrous traffic tie-ups are among its major
problems. City bus drivers know a rally at the wrong place and time is enough to wreak
havoc above and beyond the already difficult norm. And they put that know-how to use a
week before their trucking colleagues.

They caused two days of citywide traffic hell, by parking hundreds of buses in
sequence, one behind the other, along major arteries at rush hour. It was a protest
against delays in benefit payments by the private companies that own the buses, and handle
mass transit in the city. Not the most serious dispute of all time, but good enough to
paralyze one of the largest cities in the world, and disrupt the lives of millions of

Free For All

A focal point for protestors has been Avenida Paulista, or Paulista Avenue, a major
São Paulo thoroughfare. Street vendors defending their right to set up on every corner,
van owners demanding licenses to operate legally, doctors, nurses and teachers who want
better pay, the HIV-positive who want better care, even a group protesting the recent
shutdown of a radio station—all of those, and many others for and against a myriad of
causes, have gone to Paulista to protest recently. Always when traffic is at its peak,
with predictable effects: nobody goes anywhere until the snag comes undone, usually
several hours later.

City officials ask frequently that such demonstrations not be held at Paulista. Since
participants and organizers attach little importance to the basic individual right to come
and go—few bother to get proper authorization for a demonstration—officials like
to remind them that in the vicinity of Paulista, there are nine major hospitals. In other
words, bad traffic in the area could put lives at risk. So far, the argument hasn’t made
an impression.

But perhaps the one example of maximum impact and visibility, that helps to understand
the current thinking behind protesting in Brazil, is what happens far away from major
cities like São Paulo. It’s in the countryside that the MST, the landless workers’
movement that’s been described as the largest left-wing organization in the Western
Hemisphere, gets away with snubbing the law on a regular basis, without consequence.

There’s a political side to what the MST does, which is a whole different story. For
those unfamiliar with the movement, a brief explanation would be that it has organized
thousands of so-called landless peasants throughout the country to pressure for land
reform. The technique is to set up camp near lands considered unproductive and pressure
the government to make it available for redistribution, either by purchasing the property
from its owner, or taking it away outright based on the fact that it was unproductive to
begin with. The land is then distributed to the landless.

If the government is slow to respond, the camped MST supporters will simply invade the
property—recently they’ve taken to invading productive farms as well. Families then
divide the land into plots, and begin to plant crops and set up homes. The government is
then pressured to make the arrangement permanent, again by purchasing or moving to legally
displace the owner.

Without question, Brazil has a land distribution problem, and a serious one to be sure.
Cities like São Paulo are swollen by thousands who left subsistence farming to seek a
better life in the city. Many would go back under better conditions, so there is merit in
the idea of assisting that process, especially in a landmass as large as Brazil, with no
lack of arable land. But there’s a key element here: the current federal government can be
accused of inaction on a number of fronts, but not this one. In fact, during President
Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s first term in office, the federal government settled close to
250 thousand landless families throughout Brazil—more than all previous federal
administrations combined.

MST Tactics

The response of the MST to that effort has been to intensify land invasions, while
attempting to discredit what the government has accomplished. Add to this a number of
recent facts that have undermined the MST’s credibility, such as:

Efforts to “recruit” so-called landless peasants in major cities for new
campsites and future invasions;

Encouragement of ransackings of government food stores by poor peasants in Brazil’s
drought-stricken northeast;

Stated aims that have little to do with land reform, such as the need to not just take
away and redistribute land, but also “punish farmers”, as defended by MST leader
Pedro Stédile;

A recent survey by Brazil’s top weekly news magazine, Veja, showing that MST
numbers don’t add up: there are more landless peasants in Brazil now, by their accounting,
than before the government settled a quarter of a million families. At this rate, the
landless movement will also be endless;

Between questionable MST actions, and government land reform initiatives, there’s more
than enough to justify resistance to MST tactics. As there was enough to justify stopping
truckers from paralyzing the country, bus drivers from disrupting São Paulo, and so many
others from launching initiatives that harm the vast majority. Instead, as a recent
editorial by the O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper said,

“… this is not what we see in today’s Brazil. A near-pathological fear of facing
up to transgressions permeates all levels of administration, and it starts at the
presidential palace, where tolerance and complacency are becoming the norm, all in the
name of a sort of abstract democratism that, in practical terms, is the equivalent of a
license for any sector—social or professional—to adopt pressure tactics that are
clearly illegitimate and even criminal.”


Why so much government hesitation to stand up to such a broad spectrum of questionable,
often illegal actions? Impunity may be the key word. For decades, successive governments
in Brazil have tolerated blatant examples of wrongdoing that have gone unpunished. From
bankrupt construction companies that took the money and left thousands of would-be
homeowners empty-handed, to investment scandals where the investors always took the fall,
to politicians who seek office to benefit from congressional immunity, the list is
extensive—Brazilians have really seen more than their share of excessive tolerance.

In nearly all cases, there’s a common thread: those responsible seldom if ever pay for
their wrongdoing, certainly never go to jail, or have their personal property confiscated
to cover losses they’ve caused. It is always the public purse—the taxpayer—that
makes amends, while those who ought to be punished, in many cases, flaunt ostentatious

Indeed, we may be witnessing a trickle-down effect of impunity, where society, perhaps
unconsciously to some extent, but openly and blatantly in many instances, goes to extremes
in the certainty that punishment will not be the end result. The more tolerance there is,
the further people will push and test the authorities. The more serious and numerous the
unpunished acts, the more difficult it becomes for the authorities to act. And to make
matters worse for the government, political opponents certainly do take advantage of these
perceptions, and encourage or even lead different sectors in acts of defiance of the rule
of law.

That may seem like a lot of theory, but it does bear a strong resemblance to the actual
sequence of recent events. A clear enough trend has been established, and to put a stop to
it, the government must press on with vital reforms, including a full review of the
judiciary. A clear message is needed that ending widespread impunity in Brazil is the
objective. The legal system must gain the ability to deal with the rich and powerful, or
risk being unable to deal with anyone at all.

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

comments to

  • Show Comments (0)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

comment *

  • name *

  • email *

  • website *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


You May Also Like

Police drag protester in Rio - Photo by Pedro Prado

International Court Rules Against Brazil’s Police Indiscriminate Killings

Amnesty International lambasted “impunity” for Brazilian police who kill suspects during operations, after a ...

Brazil Happy with Economy and Hopeful for 2005

Growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the fifth quarter in a row ...

Military operation at favela Kelson's, in Rio de Janeiro. - Fernando Frazão/ABr

Brazil Breaks Own Record with 63,880 Murders in 2017 or 175 per Day

Brazil had a record number of murders last year, with homicides rising 3.7% from ...

It seems the future never arrives in Brazil What Lies Ahead in Brazil? Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country? Europeans, US, developed country, developing country. Bolsonaro, future B. Michael Rubin For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a country is one simple way to measure its economic development. Another way to measure a country's progress is the extent of public education, e.g. how many citizens complete high school. A country's health may be measured by the effectiveness of its healthcare system, for example, life expectancy and infant mortality. With these measurement tools, it's easier to gauge the difference between a country like Brazil and one like the U.S. What's not easy to gauge is how these two countries developed so differently when they were both "discovered" at the same time. In 1492 and 1500 respectively, the U.S. and Brazil fell under the spell of white Europeans for the first time. While the British and Portuguese had the same modus operandi, namely, to exploit their discoveries for whatever they had to offer, not to mention extinguishing the native Americans already living there if they got in the way, the end result turned out significantly different in the U.S. than in Brazil. There are several theories on how/why the U.S. developed at a faster pace than Brazil. The theories originate via contrasting perspectives – from psychology to economics to geography. One of the most popular theories suggests the divergence between the two countries is linked to politics, i.e. the U.S. established a democratic government in 1776, while Brazil's democracy it could be said began only in earnest in the 1980s. This theory states that the Portuguese monarchy, as well as the 19th and 20th century oligarchies that followed it, had no motivation to invest in industrial development or education of the masses. Rather, Brazil was prized for its cheap and plentiful labor to mine the rich soil of its vast land. There is another theory based on collective psychology that says the first U.S. colonizers from England were workaholic Puritans, who avoided dancing and music in place of work and religious devotion. They labored six days a week then spent all of Sunday in church. Meanwhile, the white settlers in Brazil were unambitious criminals who had been freed from prison in Portugal in exchange for settling in Brazil. The Marxist interpretation of why Brazil lags behind the U.S. was best summarized by Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan writer, in 1970. Galeano said five hundred years ago the U.S. had the good fortune of bad fortune. What he meant was the natural riches of Brazil – gold, silver, and diamonds – made it ripe for exploitation by western Europe. Whereas in the U.S., lacking such riches, the thirteen colonies were economically insignificant to the British. Instead, U.S. industrialization had official encouragement from England, resulting in early diversification of its exports and rapid development of manufacturing. II Leaving this debate to the historians, let us turn our focus to the future. According to global projections by several economic strategists, what lies ahead for Brazil, the U.S., and the rest of the world is startling. Projections forecast that based on GDP growth, in 2050 the world's largest economy will be China, not the U.S. In third place will be India, and in fourth – Brazil. With the ascendency of three-fourths of the BRIC countries over the next decades, it will be important to reevaluate the terms developed and developing. In thirty years, it may no longer be necessary to accept the label characterized by Nelson Rodrigues's famous phrase "complexo de vira-lata," for Brazil's national inferiority complex. For Brazilians, this future scenario presents glistening hope. A country with stronger economic power would mean the government has greater wealth to expend on infrastructure, crime control, education, healthcare, etc. What many Brazilians are not cognizant of are the pitfalls of economic prosperity. While Brazilians today may be envious of their wealthier northern neighbors, there are some aspects of a developed country's profile that are not worth envying. For example, the U.S. today far exceeds Brazil in the number of suicides, prescription drug overdoses, and mass shootings. GDP growth and economic projections depend on multiple variables, chief among them the global economic situation and worldwide political stability. A war in the Middle East, for example, can affect oil production and have global ramifications. Political stability within a country is also essential to its economic health. Elected presidents play a crucial role in a country's progress, especially as presidents may differ radically in their worldview. The political paths of the U.S. and Brazil are parallel today. In both countries, we've seen a left-wing regime (Obama/PT) followed by a far-right populist one (Trump/Bolsonaro), surprising many outside observers, and in the U.S. contradicting every political pollster, all of whom predicted a Trump loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In Brazil, although Bolsonaro was elected by a clear majority, his triumph has created a powerful emotional polarization in the country similar to what is happening in the U.S. Families, friends, and colleagues have split in a love/hate relationship toward the current presidents in the U.S. and Brazil, leaving broken friendships and family ties. Both presidents face enormous challenges to keep their campaign promises. In Brazil, a sluggish economy just recovering from a recession shows no signs of robust GDP growth for at least the next two years. High unemployment continues to devastate the consumer confidence index in Brazil, and Bolsonaro is suffering under his campaign boasts that his Economy Minister, Paulo Guedes, has all the answers to fix Brazil's slump. Additionally, there is no end to the destruction caused by corruption in Brazil. Some experts believe corruption to be the main reason why Brazil has one of the world's largest wealth inequality gaps. Political corruption robs government coffers of desperately needed funds for education and infrastructure, in addition to creating an atmosphere that encourages everyday citizens to underreport income and engage in the shadow economy, thereby sidestepping tax collectors and regulators. "Why should I be honest about reporting my income when nobody else is? The politicians are only going to steal the tax money anyway," one Brazilian doctor told me. While Bolsonaro has promised a housecleaning of corrupt officials, this is a cry Brazilians have heard from every previous administration. In only the first half-year of his presidency, he has made several missteps, such as nominating one of his sons to be the new ambassador to the U.S., despite the congressman's lack of diplomatic credentials. A June poll found that 51 percent of Brazilians now lack confidence in Bolsonaro's leadership. Just this week, Brazil issued regulations that open a fast-track to deport foreigners who are dangerous or have violated the constitution. The rules published on July 26 by Justice Minister Sérgio Moro define a dangerous person as anyone associated with terrorism or organized crime, in addition to football fans with a violent history. Journalists noted that this new regulation had coincidental timing for an American journalist who has come under fire from Moro for publishing private communications of Moro's. Nevertheless, despite overselling his leadership skills, Bolsonaro has made some economic progress. With the help of congressional leader Rodrigo Maia, a bill is moving forward in congress for the restructuring of Brazil's generous pension system. Most Brazilians recognize the long-term value of such a change, which can save the government billions of dollars over the next decade. At merely the possibility of pension reform, outside investors have responded positively, and the São Paulo stock exchange has performed brilliantly, reaching an all-time high earlier this month. In efforts to boost the economy, Bolsonaro and Paulo Guedes have taken the short-term approach advocated by the Chicago school of economics championed by Milton Friedman, who claimed the key to boosting a slugging economy was to cut government spending. Unfortunately many economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, disagree with this approach. They believe the most effective way to revive a slow economy is exactly the opposite, to spend more money not less. They say the government should be investing money in education and infrastructure projects, which can help put people back to work. Bolsonaro/Guedes have also talked about reducing business bureaucracy and revising the absurdly complex Brazilian tax system, which inhibits foreign and domestic business investment. It remains to be seen whether Bolsonaro has the political acumen to tackle this Godzilla-sized issue. Should Bolsonaro find a way to reform the tax system, the pension system, and curb the most egregious villains of political bribery and kickbacks – a tall order – his efforts could indeed show strong economic results in time for the next election in 2022. Meanwhile, some prominent leaders have already lost faith in Bolsonaro's efforts. The veteran of political/economic affairs, Joaquim Levy, has parted company with the president after being appointed head of the government's powerful development bank, BNDES. Levy and Bolsonaro butted heads over an appointment Levy made of a former employee of Lula's. When neither man refused to back down, Levy resigned his position at BNDES. Many observers believe Bolsonaro's biggest misstep has been his short-term approach to fixing the economy by loosening the laws protecting the Amazon rainforest. He and Guedes believe that by opening up more of the Amazon to logging, mining, and farming, we will see immediate economic stimulation. On July 28, the lead article of The New York Times detailed the vastly increased deforestation in the Amazon taking place under Bolsonaro's leadership. Environmental experts argue that the economic benefits of increased logging and mining in the Amazon are microscopic compared to the long-term damage to the environment. After pressure from European leaders at the recent G-20 meeting to do more to protect the world's largest rainforest, Bolsonaro echoed a patriotic response demanding that no one has the right to an opinion about the Amazon except Brazilians. In retaliation to worldwide criticism, Bolsonaro threatened to follow Trump's example and pull out of the Paris climate accord; however, Bolsonaro was persuaded by cooler heads to retract his threat. To prove who was in control of Brazil's Amazon region, he appointed a federal police officer with strong ties to agribusiness as head of FUNAI, the country's indigenous agency. In a further insult to the world's environmental leaders, not to mention common sense, Paulo Guedes held a news conference on July 25 in Manaus, the largest city in the rainforest, where he declared that since the Amazon forest is known for being the "lungs" of the world, Brazil should charge other countries for all the oxygen the forest produces. Bolsonaro/Guedes also have promised to finish paving BR-319, a controversial highway that cuts through the Amazon forest, linking Manaus to the state of Rondônia and the rest of the country. Inaugurated in 1976, BR-319 was abandoned by federal governments in the 1980s and again in the 1990s as far too costly and risky. Environmentalists believe the highway's completion will seal a death knoll on many indigenous populations by vastly facilitating the growth of the logging and mining industries. Several dozen heavily armed miners dressed in military fatigues invaded a Wajãpi village recently in the state of Amapá near the border of French Guiana and fatally stabbed one of the community's leaders. While Brazil's environmental protection policies are desperately lacking these days, not all the news here was bad. On the opening day of the 2019 Pan America Games in Lima, Peru, Brazilian Luisa Baptista, swam, biked, and ran her way to the gold medal in the women's triathlon. The silver medal went to Vittoria Lopes, another Brazilian. B. Michael Rubin is an American writer living in Brazil.

Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country?

For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. ...

Brazil’s Latest Fraud Case Involves US$ 2.5 billion and World’s Largest Beef Exporter

Brazilian police launched the so-called Greenfield Operation, an investigation of fraud at state-run companies’ ...

Brazilian cartoonist Laerte - Photo: Wikipedia

Laerte, a Brazilian Transgender Cartoonist Who Became a Netflix Movie

A documentary that premiered this week on Netflix explores the life of a Brazilian ...

Cattle being killed in Brazil

Something Rotten in the State of Brazil: The Meat they Eat

  Meat producing giants JSB SA and BRF SA are among dozens of meatpackers ...

Brazilians Seem Optimistic About Their Economy But Fear Inflation

Brazilian consumers’ Confidence Index as indicated by the latest Getúlio Vargas Foundation data shows ...

Brazil Ratifies Paris Agreement and Vows to Cut Its Emissions by About 40%

Brazilian President Michel Temer ratified Brazil’s adoption of the Paris Agreement, which sets targets ...