By Renata Prata and Ryan Strong
Triggered by the second impeachment process to occur in Brazilian history, we seek to address the most contentious points in the news when it comes to politics. Similarly to the article written after the House of Representatives voted to move forward with the impeachment process, we expose different point of views for each debatable sub-topic. Contemplate these perspectives with an open mind and never cease to question. Beware of the satirical moments.
Why was she impeached?
Renata: Dilma and the PT are the tumour of the country. The Brazilian people are tired of their gimmicks, whether it is having led the Mensalão during the Lula government, by bribing Congressmen to approve their laws, or more recently hiding the Brazilian debts.
The “fiscal pedallings” were no reason to exert the highest punishment possible upon a republic’s leader. However, Dilma’s administration was, borrowing from Portuguese, a “desadministração”. Thus, she was impeached because Congressmen could not ignore the future of a nation governed by a groundless executive with a frozen congress.
Ryan: The reason she was impeached is simple: Cunha had a vendetta against Ms. Rousseff. Well, it wasn’t until the PT approved investigations into Eduardo Cunha that Cunha allowed the impeachment process to go forward. Thus, he was clearly angry at Ms. Rousseff for allowing justice to be served and felt that it was right to send a message to everyone by going after her.
Did Dilma Rousseff commit an impeachable offense?
Renata: Yes, article 85 of the Brazilian constitution outlines the seven impeachable offenses and by practicing the so called “fiscal pedallings”, Dilma Rousseff committed the fifth and sixth crimes, which are respectively in regards to administrative integrity and the national budgetary law. The ex-president acquired loans mounting up to 58.7 billion reais from state-run banks as an unsustainable intervention to: avoid the 2007-8 international financial crisis hangover, maintain assistentialist programs and be re-elected. Despite Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula having also “pedalled”, they never outrageously exceeded 1 billion reais nor were as tardy to refund at least the majority of the loan.
Ryan: The suggestion that Dilma Rousseff committed impeachable offenses is simply not credible. Every single one of her predecessors, and governors such as Aecio Neves, use “pedalas fiscais.” Thus, there is a double standard, which is due to the fact that Ms. Rousseff is a woman, a member of the Workers’ Party, and the economy is doing poorly. Furthermore, if Ms. Rousseff is guilty of “pedalas fiscais”, so is Michel Temer, thus he should also be impeached. However, as he is part of the right wing conspiracy that overthrew Ms. Rousseff, he will simply make the “pedala fiscais” legal...
Was judging the loss of Dilma’s mandate separately from the suspense of her political rights unconstitutional?
Renata: Lewandowski, Supreme Court minister (STF), reached the climax of his petista bias in his decision to slice the impeachment judgement, and automatically the Brazilian constitutional. As said by Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) minister, Gilmar Mendes, Lewandowski’s acceptance of REDE and PT’s proposal of voting Dilma’s loss of her mandate, separately from her maintenance of political rights, is unconstitutional. Since Collor had his impeachment only voted in half, the senators found a way of making it applied to Dilma look acceptable, but the situation was completely different. Midst impeachment trial, Collor renounced, meaning, he annulled his own presidency mandate. Therefore, it was expected that the Senate would vote on the matter that was left unresolved: whether we would also lose political rights for the next eight years. Yet the unconstitutionality in the late August ruling is obvious since legally, unlike Collor, Dilma had not yet lost her presidency mandate. Furthermore, had the opposite happened, meaning, had Dilma kept her office, yet lost political rights (meaning, to occupy public offices and to run in any campaign), it would had been a ridiculous contradiction.
Ryan: The Supreme Court’s quiet acquisition to the golpistas that currently dominate the administration of Temer only further highlights her innocence. As stated above, many other governors and presidents have used creative accounting before. Thus, it is clear that there was no justifiable reason for impeachment. The STF was simply collaborating with the PSDB and Temer to remove the President from power. However, they had enough of a consciousness not to ban her from being elected to high office, which was a constitutional maneuver, due to the fact that the STF approved a separate vote on the issue.
Temer’s Economic Plan?
Renata: Temer’s expenditure containment is vital for the Brazilian to not only pick up steam again, but to live. Dilma’s government’s obligation towards its ideology of assistentialist expenses did not allow it to unabashedly perform the necessary economic reforms that the country angsts for. With Temer, it is predicted by economist Castelli that the GDP will grow by 1% in 2017, in contrast with this year’s probable - 3,2 % while the dollar exchange rate, inflation and interest will decrease.
Ryan: Temer simply wants to destroy the poor by enriching his own political class. This is obvious from his first moves in office. First, he wants to implement brutal austerity, that will lead to cuts for the poorest in society, leaving them even deeper in poverty than before. Temer also wants to destroy the rights of workers everywhere, making it easier for them to be exploited by big business. Thus, Temer will bring great harm to the lower classes.
Have there been human rights violations in the Fora Temer protests?
Renata: Unlike the anti-corruption, PT, and Dilma protests, from last and this year, the most recent ones, which chant “Fora [out] Temer” are of vandal nature. The hoodlums who occupied the streets remarkably on Sunday, 4 September, are accompanied by red flags hoisted by Unified Workers’ Central (CUT) and the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), organizations that have been bought and have red petista blood running through their veins. In article 5, subclause XVI of the Brazilian constitution, it is made clear that despite Brazilians owning the right to protest, we are obliged to previously inform authorities of the location and time of the protest. The current protesters are ignoring it, especially the Wednesday and Friday, 31 August and 2 September ones. It is the Secretary of Defense’s duty to guarantee public safety, yet they can only accomplish that with the mandatory cooperation of civilians. Another constitutional obligation that they have been ignoring, is of identification, in contrast to anonymity. Instead of picking a much more pleasant fashion, one which represents the true Brazilian reformist spirit, such as our canary Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) jersey, they have been preferring to mask themselves with black cloth. Rather than following the example of anti-Dilma protesters, who took selfies with the military, the vandals are confronting our public employees - guardians of our integrity, right to protest, and order. Protests starring cake and champagne are also welcome.
Ryan: According to the Washington Post, police fired tear gas and used rubber bullets to disperse protestors, which according to a PT lawmaker, were dispersing peacefully. Furthermore, police hit a journalist during the dispersing of the protest. This repression harkens back to the days of the military dictatorship and truly shows the right wing attempt to crush all dissent to the new Temer administration.
Please comment with insights...!