When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Sources

Why All Of Brazil's Presidents Keep Winding Up In The Mud

It is the nature of the job, not the people who occupy it, that is ultimately to blame for an endless series of scandals at the top ranks of Brazilian politics.

Job comes with a sash and corruption
Job comes with a sash and corruption
Matias Spektor

-Analysis-

SÃO PAULO — Brazil's presidential system, first installed in 1975 by Brazil's post-dictatorship New Republic, has failed. The recent conviction of Lula da Silva, the former president, who's now aiming to run to return to the top job in 2018, only provides more evidence to support this fact.

Over the past 30 years, virtually every president has eventually run into trouble with the justice system. The only ones who can sleep without a worry are Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002) and José Sarney (1985-1990), who were spared because of advanced age and because they were lucky enough to have governed the country at a time when the on-duty "shelvers' of the Republic (as a famous former general prosecutor, Geraldo Brindeiro, was nicknamed) were still in the capacity to offer protection.

The decay that the political system has produced didn't affect just elected presidents but also their top opponents (José Serra in 2002, Geraldo Alckmin in 2006, Aécio Neves in 2014), as well as numerous governors and almost one-third of the members of Congress.

This occurred because the New Republic invented a perverse formula to manage the relations between the executive and the legislative powers. In our system, the president doesn't have a parliamentary majority. In order to govern, he or she needs an "allied base" of members of both chambers of the legislature who, in turn, support the president in exchange for chunks of the budget and appointments to public offices where opportunities for juicy business are rife.

Because it's a dirty game, the president himself gets stuck in the mud.

Nothing in this system guarantees that the relations between the executive and the legislative will focus on the common good, such as providing decent hospitals, good schools and efficient public transport. On the contrary, the rules of Brazil's presidential game actually mean that the whole society has to surrender its authority in the face of groups of interests that are strong enough to take advantage of the president's necessity to secure support from his base.

Merely the go-to guy

Who wins in such a system? The cartel of construction companies such as Odebrecht, groups of businessmen and entrepreneurs such as Joesley Batista (who recently incriminated President Michel Temer), unionists who take a payment to bring strikes to an end and the lobby of health insurance companies.

In this system, the president's Planalto palace is merely the clearing house of private interests. It is where positions of trust are distributed for top dollar. And it's from there that the traps are laid to influence the justice system and to limit the damage caused by the watchdog institutions.

Right to left Michel Temer, Dilma Rousseff, Lula da Silva and his wife Marisa Letícia — Photo: Wilson Dias/ABr

As the holder of the pen that authorizes it all, the president becomes the collector-in-chief for his allies' campaigns: He's the go-to guy.

Because it's a dirty game, the president himself gets stuck in the mud. These past 30 years have seen our heads of state go crazy with all sorts of bribes, apartments, country houses, renovation works for their mothers-in-law, jobs for their kids, pocket money for their brothers, briefcases full of money and hair cuts from renowned hairdressers.

The bottom line is that more than any man or woman, it is Brazil's very institutions that are dragging the country into the dirt.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Future

Injecting Feminism Into Science Is A Good Thing — For Science

Feminists have generated a set of tools to make science less biased and more robust. Why don’t more scientists use it?

As objective as any man

Anto Magzan/ZUMA
Rachel E. Gross

-Essay-

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a mystery played out across news headlines: Men, it seemed, were dying of infection at twice the rate of women. To explain this alarming disparity, researchers looked to innate biological differences between the sexes — for instance, protective levels of sex hormones, or distinct male-female immune responses. Some even went so far as to test the possibility of treating infected men with estrogen injections.

This focus on biological sex differences turned out to be woefully inadequate, as a group of Harvard-affiliated researchers pointed out earlier this year. By analyzing more than a year of sex-disaggregated COVID-19 data, they showed that the gender gap was more fully explained by social factors like mask-wearing and distancing behaviors (less common among men) and testing rates (higher among pregnant women and health workers, who were largely female).

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ