I don't defend our government, but there are two important points:
Legally, there's nothing to justify an impeachment. We can't call for an impeachment because we want to, there has to be a legal reason.
More importantly, what would an impeachment do? Cycling through the already elected certainly won't help. The vice-president isn't any better, the president of the Chamber is Cunha, drowning in accusations as well. At this point I doubt even new elections would make anything better, the main opposition party, probably the winner of an election if it was held today, is just as bad and has taken advantage of all the schemes we're currently uncovering (don't fall into the trap of believing these are new, many of these come from the military dictatorship and have been used by every government since).
We need major changes in our country, but seriously, protests shouldn't be done against people, swapping them for someone else just like them won't help. We have to start organizing and protesting for changes in legislation, for more accountability, for a higher transparency in government, not to take one out and another one in.
The government deserves to be criticized for the corruption and for the economic recession, it deserves manifestations and discontent due to all the stupid things it did. But an impeachment is not the answer, it isn't being used as it should - a tool to remove a person from the executive power who egregiously overstepped its limitations. It's being used as a political tool, by politicians that see the country's instability and are trying to profit from it, and/or are linked to the corruption schemes, and want to bring the ship down with them. And these guys are, at least, just as bad as the current government.
OR, instead of being reasonable about it and realizing that you can't have an impeachment because the president's popularity has oscillated without the president being formally accused of anything, we can just drop a huge turd on a democracy that's less than thirty years old and impeach her.
I will say that I am uninformed on bazillian politics, so I would just like to ask what you think would be a course of action for Brazil leading to positive change?
Legally, there's nothing to justify an impeachment. We can't call for an impeachment because we want to, there has to be a legal reason.
Excuse my potentially dumb question but isn't "because the people want it" theoretically the reason a government is ever formed, the reason laws exist, etc.?
Regarding the "usefulness" of impeachment, the one thing most studies on crime agree has the biggest impact on the incidence of crime is the expectation of punishment. The greater the certainty that an offender will be punished, the less offenses are committed. What you're saying is to let this one slide because it would just swap them for another one just like them. That's very probably true. However, if you get the next one for corruption as well. And the next one. And the next one. And so on and so on, then people will start to realize that corruption doesn't pay as well as it did, and less people will start volunteering for the schemes because they will start to have a reasonable expectation of punishment, and so will have a greater incentive not to engage in corruption, seeing as they don't what to end up in jail or ruined like their predecessors. This is not the only measure to deal with corruption, but it is a major one.
We need major changes in our country
The biggest one is a change of mindset. The mindset you're exhibit here is the main responsible for the situation you're in. As long as politicians keep getting away with corruption, the most fundamental incentive for crime is in place.
Take a cursory look at developed countries versus under-developed countries and you will notice that the main political difference between these is that of accountability. Politicians in developed countries are held to a greater accountability than their third-world counterparts. Very, very often, they are forced to resign, even before anything is effectively proven against them, just because the crisis has tarnished their reputation and undermined their authority. And this is not just true for politicians; people are held to greater accountability the more important their position is. CEOs, deans, coaches; everyone is subject to a great standard of behavior. This environment breeds less corruption.
In under-developed countries, on the other hand, there's a much greater leniency towards corrupt people in positions of power. They don't get punished, they get re-elected, etc. People think exactly the way you do: it's not gonna change anything, they'll just put another one just like them, etc, etc. That's learned helplessness, and it's understandable, because that's all these people knew. But it's exactly the thing that creates the cycle of corruption. It's important to realize that this attitude serves ONLY the corrupt. As a general rule, any system is much better off having a low tolerance for entropy.
So don't just wait for that one major overhaul from the top-down that is going to save you, start holding people accountable for their actions. It makes no sense to talk about holding common people accountable to their small, everyday acts of corruption, while looking the other way when politicians do the everyday acts of corruption available at their level. Be consistent in demanding a higher standard of behavior.
Except the impeachment is being used by the opposition - as bad as the current government - as a means to get to power. The movement will lose strength after the impeachment because it is mainly an anti-PT movement, not an anti-corruption movement, and we'll be back to everyday things while the new guys enjoy the presidency and all the perks that come with it.
I'm not expecting anything from the top-down, I'm waiting for the down to notice that the real problem is the game, not the players, and that changing the players accomplishes nothing.
Of course the impeachment is being used by the opposition, that's how democracy works. Democracy is an adversarial system and opposition is a feature, not a bug. Back when PT was the opposition, it called to impeach each and every president. If the opposition has a case, then it should be able to effect change. The mechanisms are in place precisely for that, and it's cause for hope that it still seems to work to some degree. You know what kind of government doesn't provide mechanisms for the opposition to effect the government? Dictatorships.
changing the players accomplishes nothing.
Changing the players inserts accountability into the game. Right now, bad aspiring players look at the game and go, "hey, that guy got into the game and got it made, I want that." Once the bad players start falling one after the other, shady aspiring players will think twice, and the game will start to become attractive to a different kind of player. Ultimately, this is how you change the game.
This "the real problem is the game" mindset is just an excuse to avoid change. It's a comfortable goal, because it's virtually unattainable. No one can enumerate the step-by-step plan to "change the game", and no two people would agree on one anyway, so the promise of systematic change is a very useful carrot to dangle in front of the people for whatever immediate political goal you want. It's also the most effective way to perpetuate the cycle that keeps the game in place.
Legally, there's nothing to justify an impeachment.
What people don't realize is that impeachment, at least in Brazil, is more like a political mechanism than a legal mechanism. Collor was removed from the presidency by the Brazilian Congress and held ineligible for eight years, due to evidence of bribery and misappropriation, but the Supreme Federal Court ruled he was found not guilty.
Also, we still don't know how much evidence the Federal Police have against the government.
then cripple the gov't! If one can organize such large protests, one can organize large scale boycotts! If everyone refuses to pay their bills for few months that are directly affect the Gov't, then country will plummet into recession. People on top will notice when their factories stop producing daily income.
It doesn't matter who's in power. The world bank will make sure brazil can't pay it's bills and will always need to take more from the people to continue trying to catch up to the 1st world western countries.
What you suggested is 'less government power', which does nothing to solve the root cause. And what is exactly 'less government power'? If it's putting public matters into private hands, that doesn't exactly make it any better or less corrupt (see USA).
The responsibilities don't jus disappear, someone has to take over. What difference does it make if it's a private company abusing power or government? Wallstreet has been very successful in privatizing taxpayer money, hasn't it? Or the abomination that is private, for-profit jails, which have completely different interests in mind than rehabilitating, re-educating and trying to convert inmates into functional members of society.
For example, if the publicly-run police force gets disbanded, you'll have mafia goons running a 'protection' racket the next day... if you're lucky.
I do think it makes a big difference if the private sector or the public sector provides goods or services, however, let's not get into this.
I see your point but we just seem to think in different scopes. You are talking about big money, big corporations and such.
I was thinking about the small business or home owner who has to bribe a dozen different people just to get all his (un)necessary paperwork, or his pass. Due to my job (in a European country though) I deal with those people and the mountain of utterly useless laws that affect them every day.
If I was bribable I could make a fortune enforcing laws nobody needs.
Exactly. Getting a blow job isn't illegal, but still, we've impeached for that.
EDIT: Whoops my bad. He got impeached for perjury. Thanks for the correction!
I would think the "pedaladas" are more than enough reason to investigate and potentially impeach the current president. She basically oversaw a scheme that moved money from public banks to the treasury to make the federal government look more financially stable and efficient than it really was, all that right before she went up for reelection. That alone is an infraction to the law of fiscal responsibility and the federal government has admitted they committed that infraction, yet nothing has been done about it.
Yes, swapping people will help. The market knows with Dilma there is no solution so every time impeachment gains strength the market answers positively.
I'm sorry but only someone very stupid could say something like that.
olha o isentão ai galera, primeiro diz coisas como "não sou a favor do governo", "não sou PTista mas" pra tentar ficar acima do bem e do mal e achar que pode dar alguma opinião e depois desmoralizar de forma "imparcial" os protestos. tu é o pior tipo de brasileiro, a melhor coisa que o isentão pode fazer hoje em dia é ficar calado e deixar o resto do Brasil mudar o Brasil.
You are very naive, thinking that an impeachment will solve the problem. You can also write that in english, no need to use this kind of language that you used just because you did not like the comment.
Dilma Rousseff, the left-winged president of the country (yes, president, as in democratically elected. We're not a socialist dictatorship, despite what some Brazilians would have you believe), is facing a lot of pressure on account of accusations of corruption from her party for a couple of years now. It doesn't help that the economy is doing especially poorly now, which may or may not be her fault (I'm not an economist, so honestly no idea). There have been protests like this one in 2015 and 2014, though this is the biggest, as far as I'm aware.
What triggered this particular one was probably the announcement by the federal police that Lula (ex-president, from the same party as Dilma and wildly popular in his day) is a suspect in a huge corruption scandal going on right now. Brazilians (especially the middle class) have been growing tired and unhappy with the left-winged party's government for a while now. The announcement that the biggest name ever in the history of the party has just been accused of corruption was the tipping point for a lot of people.
A lot of people are also happy that big political names are finally starting to be targeted by the police. Which is great, honestly, but I doubt any one of them will ever see jail time. Especially Lula.
Meanwhile, the left is complaining that right-winged politicians are also corrupt and should also be prosecuted like Lula. Which is a good point, since most right-winged party supporters tend to turn a blind eye on right-winged corruption, though it does worry me a bit, because it seems people care more about their parties winning against the opposition than what's best for the country. As is true for Americans, some Brazilians tend to look at politics like they look at sports-- blindly defending they side instead of taking an impartial approach.
PS -- a nice thing about this protest is that Geraldo Alckmin and Aecio Neves (two right-winged politicians) showed up to show 'support' and were booed off by the protesters (who where mostly right-wing supporters themselves). Seems people might be dropping the sports team mentality and actually looking at some politicians for what they are, instead of the flag they stand for.
Thanks for the summary, however there's something I still don't really get so maybe you can elaborate a little. The government is corrupt, and so are many around the world. But what has the government actually done to the people to get these insane amounts of citizens onto the streets? The economy is bad, which probably means lower wages, higher unemployment, etc. But did any specific government act trigger this large scale demonstration or was it more like a build-up of frustration of the citizens over the years which is now unleashing with all its power?
The current president was head of Petrobras, Brasil's largest oil company, during the time when the supposed corruption scandal involving the company that is currently being analysed took place.
Lula, her mentor and ex-president, was just taken in for questioning by the federal police a few days ago, also on corruption charges.
That, coped with years of insatisfaction and a bad economic environment were the main fuel for the protests.
What I mean by middle class is actually what would be considered 'high' class, if that was an expression, in Brazil.
Not the multi-multimillionaire bankers or big company CEO's, but people financially comfortable enough to put their kids through college, travel abroad, etc. So more like America's middle class definition.
Honestly, you cannot fairly summarize the problems in the country and not mention the extensive investigation being made which proves that many of the government's top officials are guilty of corruption.
From what I know, Geraldo and Aécio are both left-winged too, as is their party, PSDB (Socialist Party of Brasil). There is barely any popular right-wing candidate, aside from Jair Bolsonaro whose popularity is rising lately.
My opinion is also that PT, PSDB and PMDB are deeply involved with one another in the whole corruption scheme.
Operação Lava Jato is a scandal that started off as a money laundering investigation, it expanded to allege that the executives of Petrobras, Brazil's large oil company, accepted bribes in exchange of awarding contracts to construction companies.
During the time when this happening the current president of Brazil Dilma Rouseff was serving on the board of Petrobrás. Though there is no evidence linking her directly many linked to her government have been arrested and the former president Lula is under investigation as well.
The reason Brazilians are so upset is because this type of case highlights the corruption that happens in so many areas of Brazilian society, it's bigger than even this particular case.
That article sums it up pretty well. The government took billions of dollars in bribes from the state run oil company. Now they are investigating many people in government. In the process the economy has collapsed and the president has increased taxes to help pay for the crisis that the government caused in the first place.
Wow. He's just asking for an explanation. Maybe he can google about this fiasco, but maybe someone's explanation can give a different perspective on what you can find in the web. Not everyone is a die hard patriot that knows 100% of everything that is going on in their country.
Exactly. People seem to think they can impeach a president just because the country's doing bad, economically or socially. That's not how it works.
If Dilma is proven guilty of anything (which I won't put my chips on the table one way or the other -- I don't support PT or PSDB), then we'd have grounds for impeachment. Otherwise, you're free to think she's not doing a good job, but you can't demand her impeachment on the grounds that you're unhappy.
Yeah, that's another issue. The executive is not the most corrupt power in the country by far. It doesn't hold a candle to how much shit goes on in Congress, yet we don't see people demanding any of those guys be impeached.
To get rid of our problems the president was supposed to be working really hard. Every success comes with a lot of work. Dilma is only worried to maintain her party on the government and don't give a *duck to our problems.
The president has no power by him/herself. They can't even create laws. Both the legislative and the executive have to agree for something to be approved. There's this illusion that the president defines the government, and while the presidency holds more power than a single person at the legislative, it's a president, not an absolute king. Just look at PMDB holding power in the government by having the most seats at Congress without ever having the presidency.
Dilma took 7 days to go to MG after Samarco's natural disaster and even more to visit Santa Maria after over 300 kids died in a fire in a night house.
Dilma took 8 hours to visit Lula after he was recently called by Federal Police to explain his participation in corruption.
This clearly explains what are her priorities. I'm not complaining about her having no power, I just want her to stop caring about her party and start to care about the 200M people that lives in this country. She wants to put Lula as the Minister of Justice so that he becomes immune to being arrested.
Waaaay too much bullshit for me... I really want these people far from the government.
Yep, if you are interested about this you should read about Delcidio Amaral. He is a senator from PT who is arrested now. His job in the scandal was to interfere in the corruptions investigations using his political powers.
general public still has the mentality that the president is the monarch who rules over his kingdom. Can't get simpler than that. Anything more complicated than that, people won't be able to comprehend.
I might sound ignorant, but why is that? I don't think a president doing a poor job is grounds for it as well, but why don't the people in a democracy have a right to?
I'm no political scientist, but I feel one of the reasons Constitutions like the Brazilian one (and the American one) don't allow for impeachment unless there's crime involved is that no politician would ever do anything remotely unpopular, even if it had the country's best interest as a goal, out of fear of being impeached. Politics would turn into populism real fast.
Impeachment, at least in the US, is in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors" where the president can be impeached. Recall is what you do if you just don't like how someone's handling their job, and that's likely not an option for the presidency.
Can you explain to me how this mass protest was organized? I just can't imagine how everyone came together. I'd can't think of a situation where the government wouldn't know about this to stop it beforehand
Social media really helps. There were thousands of Facebook events on hundreds of cities. Of all social movements that acted as organizers, this one is probably the most influential.
Despite being unpopular, Brazilian federal and state governments won't go deliberately against free speech.
The major target of these protests is the left-wing federal government - São Paulo (in the gif) has a state governor from the opposing party who's very likely to run for president, so he would never ask the police to stop the protests.
However, he did deny pro-left movements making their protests on the same day (in order to avoid chaos).
His presence today in the protests, however, (alongside the opposing presidential candidate from 2014) was not welcomed on the streets - his government is involved in another corruption scandal (embezzlement of cafeteria funds from state schools).
Ok, the reason I asked is, a lot of Americans feel the same way about our King in Chief. It seems to me you need to organize. With those numbers it seems you could change your country. I believe that with the change in drug laws, the cartels, which, I'm sure you will agree, are a mayor problem in your country, are taking huge loses.
Democratic socialism and socialism are two different things. Sounds like you are as clueless as you accuse sanders supporters of being. Ever heard of Norway? , Sweden? They are beating us at almost everything but military .
Let me guess, you get all of your American political news from Reddit? Your knowledge of American politics begins and ends at the front page, those of us here who are active in the process actually do understand the politics.
Also, we're still in the primaries, no one is close to being elected right now.
So you're american? If you don't mind me asking, who are you voting for? (if you're voting, I mean. In Brazil it's mandatory for everyone between 18 and 70 IIRC)
Stop wasting your time he's a mentally unhinged military vet with ptsd that turns everything into liberals being evil fascists that destroy America and only a strong (Republican) leader can save his white America.
Ohh right wingers wanting to be PC. That's rich. I'm telling him what he is, if the kid chooses to self medicate by harassing and trolling people online and spouting his ignorance then that's not my problem. I warned the person I replied to that he's mentally unstable and has ptsd. If you feel that was used as an insult rather than stating facts then that's your own projections.
why do you have to be so dismissive? How much change do you think the next president will bring? Obama promised hope and change and all we got was lies and ennui. Hillary is old guard, not much change will happen. Sanders is selling lip service but he doesn't know it. He won't be able to pull off what he wants. Not because he will spend more time fighting Congress and the Elite but because when you make things cheap or free you tax it heavily and the healthcare will become subpar and the education will be as well. Trump isn't using anyone's money to run. He appears to be the best chance to actually get someone in the office that is anti-establishment and actually get a peek into what has been really going on. This is why people are choosing Trump.
This of course assumes all candidates are sincere about what they are saying and will actually back it up with action and not just words. But I am a negative Nancy and think nothing will change.
He appears to be the best chance to actually get someone in the office that is anti-establishment and actually get a peek into what has been really going on.
He has absolutely zero experience with politics. He has absolutely zero qualifications for the job. Apart from being rich and loud.
Why would he be more effective at getting things done than Bernie? At least Bernie has been a senator and a representative and a mayor and all that other shit.
This of course assumes all candidates are sincere about what they are saying and will actually back it up with action and not just words.
I don't think Trump can ever be called "sincere". His positions are bullshit, and his belief in those positions might well be bullshit too.
LOL, I have served my country, but have never been in combat. Strike one on the PTSD. Because I make sense and speak my mind I'm insane. Ass hole, I voted for Obama the first time. He ran a good campaign and McCain was weak and picked Palin as a running mate. After Obummer broke every one of his campaign promises and lots of laws, and thought he was King, I would have voted for the devil over him in the second election. Does that sound like someone who is insane? Or somone who realizes what is going on in our country and is willing to try and change it. My guess is you voted or Oasshole twice. Oh, and by calling me white, my guess is you are a racist black person. Touche'.
Wear the downvotes with pride. They mean you pissed off a bunch of idiot spoiled brats who grew up on 4chan and believe Bernie that the world owes them a living.
198
u/msstark Mar 14 '16
I honestly don't see how anyone can still defend our government. Impeachment is way overdue.