BRAZIL-Useful idiots?

They live among us

Josef Stalin was reported to refer to those who believed and supported him as “useful idiots”.

Journalists, especially in the written media, used to be known for their healthy cynicism most especially with regard to politicians who paint themselves as victims.

Apparently, things have changed. Numerous foreign journalists and non-journalists (who can sometimes be forgiven for being stupid or misinformed) have bought into Dilma’s assertions that she is the victim of a “coup d’état” hatched by an evil, rich and corrupt right wing elite.

The “useful idiots” hold demonstrations that get press coverage and journalists affirm in writing that Dilma is correct. They base their arguments on the questionable public and private morality of those who are charged with judging her impeachment in the Congress.

They buy Dilma’s argument that she has been unjustly accused because she has committed no crime, has no hidden offshore bank accounts and took no public monies for personal benefit.

However, they appear not to understand anything about the charges against Dilma Rousseff. She has not been accused of any violations of the Penal Code. No one has accused her of having hidden offshore bank accounts or of dipping her hands into the public till.

The Brazilian Constitution specifies that a president can be impeached for crimes of responsibility, i.e. not properly performing the functions of the office of President as specified in the Constitution. 

Her obstinate pursuit and repetition of policies that failed miserably, unfinished and overpriced public works, refusal to deal with the legislature and her use of creative accounting to hide the true condition of the fiscal accounts of her government are the basis of the charges against her. 

She is not facing impeachment for “plain vanilla” crimes and nobody has as yet suggested that she has committed any. Whether she was an accessory to any such crimes is still under investigation but that was not included in any of the charges of the impeachment document.

I emphasize that she is facing impeachment for irresponsibly exercising the functions required of the President of Brazil as specified in the Constitution and for which dismissal from office is justified if she is found guilty.

Those outside Brazil would do well to inform themselves in that regard. Moreover, impeachment is the way presidential political systems simply fire the President. 

In any reputable and responsible private sector company, a CEO who behaved as did Dilma Rousseff would be fired by the Board of Directors. In a democracy, the Board of Directors is the voting public and its representatives as selected in open elections. A full 68% of the public support her impeachment (i.e. dismissal) and only 10% approve of her handling of the government. 

One simply can’t walk into her office like Donald Trump in his TV program and say, “You’re fired!”

She is not, repeat not, being judged in a court of law for criminal offenses. She is being judged for dismissal for crimes of responsibility by the Senate under the watchful eye of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to ensure that the Constitution is obeyed during the proceedings.

If that constitutes a “coup d’état” and a threat to democracy, it is by far one of the strangest coups in history! It seems to me that she is simply being fired by the only legitimate means available.

The character and moral principles of the “jury” are moot. I am not aware of any jury selection procedure that evaluates the characterof those being chosen to sit in judgment of any defendant! To my knowledge, no member of the Senate (i.e. the jury) has as yet been convicted of any crime.

It would behoove those who jump on Dilma’s bandwagon to first verify the procedures and constitutional provisions for firing a President in Brazil.

Moreover, as shown in the post below, and supported by the rate of unemployment (11 million out of jobs), the number of jobs closed over the past couple of years, the dismal conditions of the fiscal accounts, the plundering of Petrobrás, and the situation of other state-owned companies and banks, one is hard-pressed to assert that Dilma Rousseff does not deserve to be fired for exercising the requirements of her office irresponsibly (repeat: as required by the Constitution). And impeachment is the way a country “fires” its president.

And finally, although it seems doubtful, she could still “walk”!

I am not surprised that some individuals express sympathy and agreement with Dilma’s assertions of a coup, but I confess surprise at the professional journalists who are expected to verify facts before writing poorly-informed opinions in otherwise responsible media.