What do you see as the main reasons for the fall of the Rousseff government?
The government’s fall is a result of the combination of its low popularity, inability to respond to the economic crisis affecting the people, and the efforts by the traditional right wing to end the “Lava Jato” (Car-Wash) corruption investigations, which have reached all large parties of the status quo: the Workers’ Party and Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), through to the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, the Progressive Party, the Democrats and others.
An agreement has been made by the leadership of the PMDB, the party of the current acting president, coup-leader Michel Temer, and the former speaker of the house and Supreme Court defendant, Eduardo Cunha, who, with their allies, have sought to stop the corruption investigations in order not to become future targets of the courts.
There is also the key role played by the mass media, especially the Globo Group, which was instrumental in inflaming and convincing the population that the government was to blame for the economic crisis.
What is the role and influence of the actors involved in the coup – the media, the judiciary, the “lower clergy” (rent-seeking politicians), big business etc?
Since 2015, the beginning of Dilma’s second term, the media controlled by the Globo Group have entered into a pact to demoralise and further undermine the government’s popularity, which was already quite low because of the political and economic crisis. It encouraged street protests, led by figures from the traditional Brazilian right, and in its newspapers presented the true stories of corruption in the Workers’ Party leadership, based on information selectively leaked from the corruption investigations.
There was also an important sector of business, led by the Sao Paulo Federation of Industries and the Rio de Janeiro Federation of Industries, which encouraged and financed advertisements and demonstrations in favour of Dilma’s impeachment. Finally, the so-called lower clergy of Congress, led by and tied to Cunha’s schemes, was faithful to its master and voted heavily for the impeachment in the Congress.
Therefore, we can say that there was an articulation of different sectors, without knowing whether it was in a conscious and coordinated manner or for the same reasons: the PMDB leadership and the parties of the right wing opposition, who led the lower clergy, along with an important industrial sector and media that encouraged the overthrow of the government.
What are the future prospects for the current system, for an exit “to the left”, for the mobilisation of social movements and for the political parties?
There is a political impasse for the left and democratic sectors of the country. There is an almost unanimous rejection of the illegitimate government of Michel Temer and a consensus that it must be defeated by the force of people on the streets. However, a consensus has not been reached among these sectors that are mobilising, organising actions and occupying ministries, about the future or what should be the demands and positive agenda that we present. The sectors historically linked to the PT demand the return of Dilma, but do not take into consideration that she remains without popular support and without a parliamentary base. That is, she could not govern and the crisis would continue.
In my view, we need to regroup the left and democratic sectors of the country in a project that moves beyond the Workers’ Party experience, which went badly because it reproduced the traditional schemes of governance. We must forge … forms of direct participation and empowerment of the population. We must redefine the relationship of the people with power, stimulating the whole city to “do politics”. We need … a new political ecosystem over which we have control and which must develop freely through the mobilisation process.
What has been your involvement during the current political situation, and what are the strategies and perspectives of the organisations in which you are active?
Since 2013, when Brazil was the scene of demonstrations of millions of young people, I started to get involved in activism. Until then, I was a journalist and more focused on international politics. I coordinated the campaign for asylum for Snowden in Brazil, and the Juntos collective [a non-profit organisation committed to intercultural exchange] was a great partner in collecting more than 1.5 million signatures for this campaign. Unfortunately, Dilma and Congress turned their back on Snowden and our work, which revealed, among the vast NSA spying, a specific scheme of espionage against the Brazilian government.
Since then, my engagement in national politics has grown. In 2015, through another partnership with Juntos, we opened the Casa da Juventude (Youth House) – a space in the Port Zone of Rio that works as a territory of cultural and political resistance for the city’s young people and connects with several other projects scattered throughout various parts of the city. It’s a project that is just beginning, but it already has a lot of history. In addition to historical youth issues – such as gender and sexuality, drug legalisation, feminism, fighting against racism – other new themes are also part of the terrain we work on. For example, hacker-activism and media-activism, which … gained more strength after Snowden and WikiLeaks.
Earlier this year, I was invited and put forward by the Juntos collective to represent its program in municipal elections to contest a seat in on the town council. So I am a pre-candidate for PSOL, the party of (state parliamentarian) Marcelo Freixo and (presidential candidate) Luciana Genro, which puts forward a new way of doing politics, and refuses any alliance with the country’s conservative and reactionary groups, one of the biggest mistakes of the old left represented by the Workers’ Party.
