A Major Judicial/Political shift in Brazil

Last week, Brazil's Supreme Court approved bringing to trial Lula's former top aide, José Dirceu, along with almost 40 other politicians, over charges of corruption stemming from the 2005 mensalão crisis. In brief, the mensalão crisis revolved around the allegations of Dirceu and other members of the PT and allied parties using money from their campaign coffers to bribe opposition politicians in return for votes. The outrage in the media (which is dominated by conservatives and targets the conservative middle- and upper-classes in Brazil) was immediate in 2005, resulting in Dirceu's resignation. It was quickly clear that Lula was not part of this alleged process, but the media, in its efforts to discredit the center-left and left in Brazil, has never let up on the story.

Suffice to say, with the approval of letting the case go to trial, the media here has gone crazy in celebrating the "great step for freedom" this decision marks, with pundits on TV saying that Brazil is "finally" shedding its corruption, and this just goes to show that politicians will no longer remain above the law.

Only, maybe it doesn't. While he was most certainly not the "purest" politician out there, José Dirceu's complaint that the media has dominated this story isn't without merit, even if he is (probably) raising the criticism to try to save his own skin.

First of all, as I mentioned, the media has been all over this story for years, in part because of the involvement of some center-left parties (not just the PT). Were it right-wing parties, however, the story would unquestionably be far different, and I don't say this because of political cynicism of a lefty. In its 1988 Constitution, Brazil determined that presidents could only serve one term. However, Fernando Henrique Cardoso got an amendment approved in his first term (1994-1998) to allow a second term, an amendment of which he immediately took advantage. When the two-term amendment was passed, it was all but openly acknowledged that there had been some "backroom dealing" (read: payments for votes) to pass the amendment. Yet FHC, the middle-class, upper-class, media and center-right's hero, had no scandal on his hands. There was no outrage about payments for votes in Congress (on no less than a constitutional amendment - and it's worth noting that, unlike in the U.S., the Brazilian states do not vote to approve a new amendment for the constitution). Thus, it isn't that the alleged charges against Dirceu et al are anything new - such dealings were rampant during FHC's administration, but the media looked the other way (think the U.S. media's treatment of Gore, Hillary, or Edwards vs. Republican candidates, and you start to get a sense of the double-standard tone, although the substance is different). Indeed, by many political measurements (for what they are worth), national and international, Brazil is generally near the top in terms of corruption. If it's so wide-spread (and I'm not sure how severe it is - definitions of "corruption" generally seem to be lacking in these reports), it certainly cannot be limited to just the PT or the center-left. Corruption has been a constant in Brazilian politics for generations, both on the left and the right. So Dirceu's complaint that the media is dictating the court's decision, while clearly simplifying the matter, isn't necessarily off base, either. After all, greed isn't anything new to politicians, Brazilian or otherwise.

The other reason I'm skeptical that this marks a "major shift" in the impunity of politicians is related to this. Political scientists and the media in Brazil can laud this move all they want, but until it becomes apparent that they are going to go after politicians from the left and the right, I'm less than convinced. I'm not saying this couldn't happen, but given the allegations, public and private, about all parties, it seems that going after all "corrupt" politicians would all but bring Brazil to its knees - there would hardly be anybody left to be a national politician.

Certainly, things are far from over. The media will doubtlessly continue to push this while more important issues (such as, oh, poverty or the police occupation of favelas) remain ignored. But now that these men can be brought to trial doesn't mean anything will come of it. Carta Capital is absolutely right in pointing out that now the prosecution has to prove that this corruption existed, which isn't as easy as it may seem. However, this could be setting a major watershed, and not necessarily in the good way. As I said, until the courts go after "corrupt" politicians (and I'm not saying those charged here aren't - my problem is much more in the very vague and fuzzy way in which that word is generally defined, in Brazil and elsewhere) regardless of party. Another watershed could be that the media's obsession with attacking the non-center-right incessantly via "scandals", "corruption", and "outrage" could tilt the media bias in Brazil even further, giving the media a power it most certainly does not need and absolutely should not and cannot have. This story will not go away anytime soon (regardless of media bias), but its implications for Brazilian politicians (especially from the center-left) could last for years. Stay tuned.