Only one side will be left standing
The antagonists are poised for the final battle in the War of the Kleptocrats. By mid-May (or thereabouts), Dilma Rousseff’s fate will have been sealed. She will either return to her job or vacate the presidential palace once and for all.
The odds-makers, pundits, talking heads and analysts expect that the opposition will emerge victorious following the defeat of the government in the previous battle in the Lower Chamber and what is considered to be the numerical superiority of the opposition’s “army”.
The government has decided and announced that it will make a stand in spite of what seems to be a numerical disadvantage. It is claiming “moral superiority” as its strongest weapon.
Dilma has claimed that she is simply a humble “Publican” who has been judged and condemned by “Pharisees”. She continues to insist that she has been dealt a low blow and is the victim of a “coup d’etat” led by her own Vice-President. The analysis of the complaint against her was conducted by the President of the Lower Chamber who Dilma says engaged in an act of personal vengeance and has no moral right to judge her.
This “behind the looking glass” logic does not stand up well under closer examination on this side of the mirror. Dilma, if impeached, will be answering for “crimes of responsibility”, not necessarily violations of the criminal code.
In the USA, the president can be impeached for what are called “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The charges against Dilma might fall into the misdemeanor category – i.e. less heinous than a felony. However, the reach in Brazil is a little broader. The president in Brazil is expected to govern in accordance with certain responsibilities, the violation of which are specified in Article 85 of the 1988 Constitution.
Dilma is correct when she says she has not been accused of a “crime” – i.e. she was not accused of using public funds for her personalbenefit, buying a beachfront apartment or a country getaway, robbing a bank while in office, having an undeclared offshore bank account, etc.
However, the charges as listed in the document approved by the Lower Chamber specify certain acts that are considered to violate the requirement for responsible and honest government. Her argument in this case is that everybody else before her did it. That’s treading on thin ice. No judge I have ever met would excuse a defendant simply because someone else had committed the same crime for which the defendant has been accused. It simply doesn’t work that way in the world of jurisprudence.
Moreover, the claim that she has been judged by those who are her “moral inferiors” or even cads is immaterial if they are, like Dilma, legitimately elected to their roles in government and empowered to sit in judgment of those accused of violating the norms of proper or responsible governance.
The fact that any of those judging Dilma have less “character” than she is not at issue. The question to be analyzed is “did she or didn’t she”? And what will decide that question is the vote tally in the Senate. Full stop!
Outnumbered, the PT has resorted to political “slime” tactics. Essentially the party is saying, “OK, we are bad but the other guys are even worse!” Meanwhile, Lula continues to operate in the background negotiating what little the government can offer in exchange for support in the impeachment trial. It might even work, but most of those cited above think not.
Finally, since we are discussing a War of the Kleptocrats, it is naïve to presume that either side is made up of Boy Scouts!
Dilma has promised that if she “walks” she will form a new “democratic pact”. That tends to ring a bit hollow coming from a party that claims to want to “rule in perpetuity”. How can one be “democratic” while wanting to rule unchallenged? That’s a bit of behind-the-looking-glass logic as far as I can tell!
The opposition would like nothing better than to emerge victorious and then dismantle Lava-Jato to ensure that no further investigation of corruption and financial shenanigans occurs. Because that is unlikely to happen, the incoming victors could easily suffer the same fate as the outgoing “neo-kleptocrats”.
Finally, the fact that the “neo-kleptocrats” will have lost the war offers no assurance that they will not continue to oppose the eventual victors “on the streets”. They could well go to ground and continue their opposition with violent attacks on the system in defense of their “moral superiority” and the fact that they consider the impeachment to have been a “putsch”.
So, even with a “new” government, you are well-advised to keep your head below the parapet until sustainable calm prevails. The situation remains highly fluid and the question now is how far will the victors be willing to go to stay in power?
No comments:
Post a Comment