They don’t know what they are talking about
Today’s local press reported that several international newspapers criticized the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. The New York Timeswas reported to have observed that the price paid by Dilma Rousseff was excessive in view of the “administrative errors” during her administration.
I can only conclude that the Times did not take the trouble to translate and read the charges raised in the document submitted by Janaina Paschoal, Miguel Reale Jr. and Helio Bicudo and the Brazilian Constituion to see if the price Dilma paid was, in fact, excessive.
Was the attempt to create a one-party political system that would be governed by the PT “in perpetuity” not an attempted "coup d'état"? Were the errors simply “administrative”? If so, why did Dilma repeat them over and over when it was clear that her policies were not working?
Finally, the Times observed that the Temer administration harbors many politicians under investigation in the Lava-Jato program. That’s quite true. But let’s remember that for the past 13 years, Brazil was involved in a war for power between two kleptocratic groups: the traditional kleptocrats who governed Brazil for decades and the “neo-kleptocrats” of the PT and allied parties anxious to displace – not replace – the traditional kleptocrats.
It was a fight over who would control access to the rents of the Brazilian economy, not over imposing a reform of the system. That fact was the reason for my post regarding the Castellamarese War – a dispute between two criminal factions over the best way to confiscate the rents of the US economy. What did the Timesexpect?
The only difference between Brazi's War of the Kleptocrats and the Castellamarese War is that in Brazil the criminal elements are in the government, not peripheral to it. Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky were no “better” than those they replaced – in fact, they were worse; better organized, and more determined.
The editorial in The Guardian went even further. It reported that the political system in Brazil is dysfunctional and that rather than impeach Dilma, a reform of the system should have been imposed. Really? And who would impose the reform? The neo-kleptocrats were already trying to impose a new system based on one-party rule in perpetuity. I don’t quite consider that a “reform”! The traditional kleptocrats wanted a return to the status quo ante that equally was hardly a political reform.
Did The Guardian expect the traditional kleptocrats to carry out a reform of the political system that had benefitted them for decades? Give me a break!!
The desired reform is most likely to originate in the Lava-Jato investigation(s) that has changed the long-standing “tradition” of impunity for the traditional kleptocrats. There are several members of the traditional kleptocratic class now occupying prison cells and turning in others via plea bargains. The list of the “usual suspects” is a long one and the investigations continue. In fact, the Lava-Jato spotlight has fallen upon members of the current administration and there are no signs that they will be allowed to avoid the consequences of their actions if found guilty.
Overcoming centuries of one-family rule, followed by a new group of kleptocrats when the First Republic was founded, Brazil has a very long way to go to set up a functional, representative political system characterized by appropriate governance.
The most we can expect from the current administration is a return to economic stability, the reduction of the unemployment rate, cleaning up the fiscal accounts, and a gradual return to growth. It will be up to the Brazilian electorate to create a new political model.
No comments:
Post a Comment