Reproduzimos abaixo o website www.theintercept.com / English version bellow
Fica claro que o movimentos golpista nunca foi contra a corrupção, mas a derrubada de um governo que já não servia mais aos interesses internacionais e da burguesia nacional.
Enquanto a corrupção assombra o Temer, caem as máscaras dos movimentos pró-impeachment
O
IMPEACHMENT DA PRESIDENTE do Brasil democraticamente eleita, Dilma Rousseff,
foi inicialmente conduzido por grandes protestos de cidadãos que demandavam seu
afastamento. Embora a mídia dominante do país glorificasse incessantemente (e
incitasse) estes protestos de figurino verde-e-amarelo como um movimento
orgânico de cidadania, surgiram, recentemente, evidências de que os líderes dos
protestos foram secretamente pagos e financiados por partidos da oposição.
Ainda assim, não há dúvidas de que milhões de brasileiros participaram nas
marchas que reivindicavam a saída de Dilma, afirmando que eram motivados pela
indignação com a presidente e com a corrupção de seu partido.
Mas
desde o início, havia inúmeras razões para duvidar desta história e perceber
que estes manifestantes, na verdade, não eram (em sua maioria) opositores da
corrupção, mas simplesmente dedicados a retirar do poder o partido de
centro-esquerda que ganhou quatro eleições consecutivas. Como reportado pelos
meios de mídia internacionais, pesquisas mostraram que os manifestantes não
eram representativos da sociedade brasileira mas, ao invés disso, eram
desproporcionalmente brancos e ricos: em outras palavras, as mesmas pessoas que
sempre odiaram e votaram contra o PT. Como dito pelo The Guardian, sobre o
maior protesto no Rio: “a multidão era predominantemente branca, de classe
média e predisposta a apoiar a oposição”. Certamente, muitos dos antigos
apoiadores do PT se viraram contra Dilma – com boas razões – e o próprio PT tem
estado, de fato, cheio de corrupção. Mas os protestos eram majoritariamente
compostos pelos mesmos grupos que sempre se opuseram ao PT.
É
esse o motivo pelo qual uma foto – de uma família rica e branca num protesto
anti-Dilma seguida por sua babá de fim de semana negra, vestida com o uniforme
branco que muitos ricos no Brasil fazem
seus empregados usarem – se tornou viral: porque ela captura o que foram estes
protestos. E enquanto esses manifestantes corretamente denunciavam os escândalos
de corrupção no interior do PT – e há muitos deles – ignoravam amplamente os
políticos de direita que se afogavam em escândalos muitos piores que as
acusações contra Dilma.
Claramente,
essas marchas não eram contra a corrupção, mas contra a democracia: conduzidas
por pessoas cujas visões políticas são minoritárias e cujos políticos
preferidos perdem quando as eleições determinam quem comanda o Brasil. E, como
pretendido, o novo governo tenta agora impor uma agenda de austeridade e
privatização que jamais seria ratificado se a população tivesse sua voz ouvida
(a própria Dilma impôs medidas de austeridade depois de sua reeleição em 2014,
após ter concorrido contra eles).
Depois
das enormes notícias de ontem sobre o Brasil, as evidências de que estes
protestos foram uma farsa são agora irrefutáveis. Um executivo do petróleo e
ex-senador do partido conservador de oposição, o PSDB, Sérgio Machado, declarou
em seu acordo de delação premiada que Michel Temer – presidente interino do
Brasil que conspirou para remover Dilma – exigiu R$1,5 milhões em propinas para
a campanha do candidato de seu partido à prefeitura de São Paulo (Temer nega a
informação). Isso vem se somar a vários outros escândalos de corrupção nos
quais Temer está envolvido, bem como sua inelegibilidade se candidatar a
qualquer cargo (incluindo o que por ora ocupa) por 8 anos, imposta pelo TRE por
conta de violações da lei sobre os gastos de campanha.
E
tudo isso independentemente de como dois dos novos ministros de Temer foram
forçados a renunciar depois que gravações revelaram que eles estavam
conspirando para barrar a investigação na qual eram alvos, incluindo o que era
seu ministro anticorrupção e outro – Romero Jucá, um de seus aliados mais
próximos em Brasília – que agora foi acusado por Machado de receber milhões em
subornos. Em suma, a pessoa cujas elites brasileiras – em nome da
“anticorrupção” – instalaram para substituir a presidente democraticamente
eleita está sufocando entre diversos e esmagadores escândalos de corrupção.
Mas
os efeitos da notícia bombástica de ontem foram muito além de Temer, envolvendo
inúmeros outros políticos que estiveram liderando a luta pelo impeachment
contra Dilma. Talvez o mais significante seja Aécio Neves, o candidato de
centro-direita do PSDB derrotado por Dilma em 2014 e quem, como Senador, é um
dos líderes entre os defensores do impeachment. Machado alegou que Aécio – que
também já havia estado envolvido em escândalos de corrupção – recebeu e
controlou R$ 1 milhão em doações ilegais de campanha. Descrever Aécio como
figura central para a visão política dos manifestantes é subestimar sua
importância. Por cerca de um ano, eles popularizaram a frase “Não é minha
culpa: eu votei no Aécio”; chegaram a fazer camisetas e adesivos que
orgulhosamente proclamavam isso:
Evidências
de corrupção generalizada entre a classe política brasileira – não só no PT mas
muito além dele – continuam a surgir, agora envolvendo aqueles que
antidemocraticamente tomaram o poder em nome do combate a ela. Mas desde o
impeachment de Dilma, o movimento de protestos desapareceu. Por alguma razão, o
pessoal do “Vem Pra Rua” não está mais nas ruas exigindo o impeachment de
Temer, ou a remoção de Aécio, ou a prisão de Jucá. Porque será? Para onde eles
foram?
Podemos
procurar, em vão, em seu website e sua página no Facebook por qualquer
denúncia, ou ainda organização de protestos, voltados para a profunda e
generalizada corrupção do governo “interino” ou qualquer dos inúmeros políticos
que não sejam da esquerda. Eles ainda estão promovendo o que esperam que seja
uma marcha massiva no dia 31 de julho, mas que é focada no impeachment de
Dilma, e não no de Temer ou de qualquer líder da oposição cuja profunda
corrupção já tenha sido provada. Sua suposta indignação com a corrupção parece
começar – e terminar – com a Dilma e o PT.
Neste
sentido, esse movimento é de fato representativo do próprio impeachment: usou a
corrupção como pretexto para os fins antidemocráticos que logrou atingir. Para
além de outras questões, qualquer processo que resulte no empoderamento de alguém
como Michel Temer, Romero Jucá e Aécio Neves tem muitos objetivos: a luta
contra a corrupção nunca foi um deles.
*
* * * *
No
mês passado, o primeiro brasileiro ganhador do Prêmio Pulitzer, o
fotojornalista Mauricio Lima, denunciou o impeachment como um “golpe” com a TV
Globo em seu centro. Ontem à noite, como convidado no show de Chelsea Handler
no Netflix, o ator popular Wagner Moura denunciou isso em termos similares,
dizendo que a cobertura da mídia nacional foi “extremamente limitada” porque “pertence
a cinco famílias”.
Atualização:
Logo depois da publicação deste artigo, foi anunciado que o presidente interino
Temer acaba de perder seu terceiro ministro para a corrupção menos de dois
meses depois da tomada do poder: dessa vez, seu ministro do turismo Henrique
Eduardo Alves, acusado na delação premiada de Machado de receber R$ 1,5 milhão
em propinas de 2008 a 2014. Quando se toma o poder antidemocraticamente usando
a “corrupção” como pretexto, em geral é uma má ideia encher sua equipe de criminosos
(e ter o próprio novo presidente envolvido em múltiplos escândalos de
corrupção).
As Corruption Engulfs Brazil’s “Interim” President, Mask Has Fallen Off Protest Movement
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/16/as-corruption-engulfs-brazils-interim-president-mask-has-fallen-off-protest-movement/
MOMENTUM FOR THE impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected president, Dilma Rousseff, was initially driven by large, flamboyant street protests of citizens demanding her removal. Although Brazil’s dominant media endlessly glorified (and incited) these green-and-yellow-clad protests as an organic citizen movement, evidence recently emerged that protests groups were covertly funded by opposition parties. Still, there is no doubt that millions of Brazilians participated in marches demanding Rousseff’s ouster, claiming they were motivated by anger over her and her party’s corruption.
But from the start, there were all sorts of reasons to doubt this storyline and to see that these protesters were (for the most part) not opposed to corruption, but simply devoted to removing from power the center-left party that won four straight national elections. As international media outlets reported, data showed that the protesters were not representative of Brazilian society but rather were disproportionately white and rich: In other words, the same people who have long hated and voted against PT. As The Guardian put it in its description of the largest Rio protest: “The crowd was predominantly white, middle class and predisposed to supporting the opposition.” To be sure, many former PT supporters turned against Dilma — with good reason — and PT itself has indeed been rife with corruption. But the protests were largely composed of the same factions who have long opposed PT.
That’s why a photo — of a wealthy, white family at an anti-Dilma protest trailed by their black weekend nanny decked in the all-white uniform many rich Brazilians make their domestic servants wear — went viral: because it captured what these protests were. And while these protests rightly denounced the corruption scandals inside PT — and there are many — they largely ignored the right-wing politicians drowning in far worse corruption scandals than Dilma.
Plainly, these were not anti-corruption marches but rather anti-democracy marches: conducted by people whose political views are a minority and whose preferred politicians lose when elections determine who leads Brazil. And, as intended, the new government is now attempting to impose an agenda of austerity and privatization that would never be ratified if the population had any say (Dilma herself imposed austerity measures after her 2014 re-election, after running on a campaign against them).
After yesterday’s huge news from Brazil, the evidence that these protests were a sham is now overwhelming. An oil executive and ex-senator from the conservative opposition party PSDB, Sérgio Machado, testified as part of his plea bargain that Michel Temer — Brazil’s “interim” president who conspired to get rid of Dilma — demanded 1.5 million reals in illegal kickbacks for the São Paulo mayoral campaign of his party’s candidate (Temer denies this). This comes on top of multiple other corruption scandals in which Temer is implicated, as well as a court-imposed eight-year ban on his running for any office (including the one he now occupies) due to violations of campaign spending laws.
And that’s all independent of how two of Temer’s new ministers were forced to resign after recordings revealed they were conspiring to kill the corruption investigation in which they are targets, including one who was Temer’s anti-corruption minister and another — Romero Jucá, one of Temer’s closest allies in Brasília — who now has been accused by Machado of receiving many millions in bribes. In sum, the person whom Brazilian elites — in the name of “anti-corruption” — installed to replace the democratically elected president is choking on multiple, overwhelming scandals of corruption.
But yesterday’s bombshell extended far beyond Temer, engulfing numerous other politicians who have been leading the impeachment charge against Dilma. Perhaps most significant is Aécio Neves, the center-right PSDB candidate whom Dilma defeated in 2014 and who, as a senator, is a leading advocate of her impeachment. Machado testified that Aécio — who also had been previously implicated in the corruption scandal — received and controlled 1 million reals in illegal campaign donations. To describe Aécio as central to the protesters’ worldview is an understatement. For over a year, they popularized the phrase “It’s not my fault: I voted for Aécio”; they even made T-shirts and bumper stickers proudly proclaiming this:
Evidence of pervasive corruption among Brazil’s political class — not only PT but far beyond it — continues to emerge, now engulfing those who undemocratically seized power in the name of combating it. But ever since the lower House vote on Dilma’s impeachment, the protest movement has disappeared. For some reason, the “Vem Pra Rua” (come to the streets) contingent is not out in the streets demanding Temer’s impeachment, or Aécio’s removal, or Jucá’s imprisonment. Why is that? Where have they gone?
One searches their website and Facebook pages in vain for any denunciation, let alone protest organizing, aimed at the deep, pervasive corruption of the “interim” government or any of the numerous politicians not on the left. They are still promoting what they hope will be a massive march on July 31, but that centers around Dilma’s impeachment, not Temer or any opposition leaders who have proven to be deeply corrupt. Their purported anger over corruption seems to begin — and end — with Dilma and PT.
In this regard, this protest movement is indeed representative of impeachment itself: It used corruption as the pretext for the anti-democratic end it sought to achieve. Whatever else is true, any process that results in the empowerment of people like Michel Temer, Romero Jucá, and Aécio Neves had many goals; anti-corruption was never one of them.
Last month, Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize winner, the photojournalist Mauricio Lima, denounced impeachment as a “coup” with the Globo TV network at its center. Last night, as a guest on Chelsea Handler’s Netflix show, Wagner Moura, arguably Brazil’s most popular actor, denounced it in similar terms, saying that domestic media coverage has been “extremely limited” because the Brazilian media “is owned by five families.”
UPDATE: Shortly after this article was published, it was announced that “interim” President Temer just lost his third minister to corruption in less than two months since he seized power: this time, this Tourism Minister Henrique Eduardo Alves, accused in Machado’s plea statement of receiving R$ 1.5 million in kickbacks from 2008 to 2014. If you’re going to take power undemocratically and use “corruption” as the pretext, it’s generally a bad idea to fill your new cabinet with criminals (and, for that matter, for the new president himself to be implicated in multiple layers of corruption).
But from the start, there were all sorts of reasons to doubt this storyline and to see that these protesters were (for the most part) not opposed to corruption, but simply devoted to removing from power the center-left party that won four straight national elections. As international media outlets reported, data showed that the protesters were not representative of Brazilian society but rather were disproportionately white and rich: In other words, the same people who have long hated and voted against PT. As The Guardian put it in its description of the largest Rio protest: “The crowd was predominantly white, middle class and predisposed to supporting the opposition.” To be sure, many former PT supporters turned against Dilma — with good reason — and PT itself has indeed been rife with corruption. But the protests were largely composed of the same factions who have long opposed PT.
That’s why a photo — of a wealthy, white family at an anti-Dilma protest trailed by their black weekend nanny decked in the all-white uniform many rich Brazilians make their domestic servants wear — went viral: because it captured what these protests were. And while these protests rightly denounced the corruption scandals inside PT — and there are many — they largely ignored the right-wing politicians drowning in far worse corruption scandals than Dilma.
Plainly, these were not anti-corruption marches but rather anti-democracy marches: conducted by people whose political views are a minority and whose preferred politicians lose when elections determine who leads Brazil. And, as intended, the new government is now attempting to impose an agenda of austerity and privatization that would never be ratified if the population had any say (Dilma herself imposed austerity measures after her 2014 re-election, after running on a campaign against them).
After yesterday’s huge news from Brazil, the evidence that these protests were a sham is now overwhelming. An oil executive and ex-senator from the conservative opposition party PSDB, Sérgio Machado, testified as part of his plea bargain that Michel Temer — Brazil’s “interim” president who conspired to get rid of Dilma — demanded 1.5 million reals in illegal kickbacks for the São Paulo mayoral campaign of his party’s candidate (Temer denies this). This comes on top of multiple other corruption scandals in which Temer is implicated, as well as a court-imposed eight-year ban on his running for any office (including the one he now occupies) due to violations of campaign spending laws.
And that’s all independent of how two of Temer’s new ministers were forced to resign after recordings revealed they were conspiring to kill the corruption investigation in which they are targets, including one who was Temer’s anti-corruption minister and another — Romero Jucá, one of Temer’s closest allies in Brasília — who now has been accused by Machado of receiving many millions in bribes. In sum, the person whom Brazilian elites — in the name of “anti-corruption” — installed to replace the democratically elected president is choking on multiple, overwhelming scandals of corruption.
But yesterday’s bombshell extended far beyond Temer, engulfing numerous other politicians who have been leading the impeachment charge against Dilma. Perhaps most significant is Aécio Neves, the center-right PSDB candidate whom Dilma defeated in 2014 and who, as a senator, is a leading advocate of her impeachment. Machado testified that Aécio — who also had been previously implicated in the corruption scandal — received and controlled 1 million reals in illegal campaign donations. To describe Aécio as central to the protesters’ worldview is an understatement. For over a year, they popularized the phrase “It’s not my fault: I voted for Aécio”; they even made T-shirts and bumper stickers proudly proclaiming this:
Evidence of pervasive corruption among Brazil’s political class — not only PT but far beyond it — continues to emerge, now engulfing those who undemocratically seized power in the name of combating it. But ever since the lower House vote on Dilma’s impeachment, the protest movement has disappeared. For some reason, the “Vem Pra Rua” (come to the streets) contingent is not out in the streets demanding Temer’s impeachment, or Aécio’s removal, or Jucá’s imprisonment. Why is that? Where have they gone?
One searches their website and Facebook pages in vain for any denunciation, let alone protest organizing, aimed at the deep, pervasive corruption of the “interim” government or any of the numerous politicians not on the left. They are still promoting what they hope will be a massive march on July 31, but that centers around Dilma’s impeachment, not Temer or any opposition leaders who have proven to be deeply corrupt. Their purported anger over corruption seems to begin — and end — with Dilma and PT.
In this regard, this protest movement is indeed representative of impeachment itself: It used corruption as the pretext for the anti-democratic end it sought to achieve. Whatever else is true, any process that results in the empowerment of people like Michel Temer, Romero Jucá, and Aécio Neves had many goals; anti-corruption was never one of them.
Last month, Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize winner, the photojournalist Mauricio Lima, denounced impeachment as a “coup” with the Globo TV network at its center. Last night, as a guest on Chelsea Handler’s Netflix show, Wagner Moura, arguably Brazil’s most popular actor, denounced it in similar terms, saying that domestic media coverage has been “extremely limited” because the Brazilian media “is owned by five families.”
UPDATE: Shortly after this article was published, it was announced that “interim” President Temer just lost his third minister to corruption in less than two months since he seized power: this time, this Tourism Minister Henrique Eduardo Alves, accused in Machado’s plea statement of receiving R$ 1.5 million in kickbacks from 2008 to 2014. If you’re going to take power undemocratically and use “corruption” as the pretext, it’s generally a bad idea to fill your new cabinet with criminals (and, for that matter, for the new president himself to be implicated in multiple layers of corruption).
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário