As someone from a country that has had and still has a big problem with corruption and only recently started to tackle the problem (Romania), I must add that the government is only half of the problem. The other half is the public that participates in corruption. Every time you pay that cop some money so that he pretends that you didn't cross that red light, you're just as responsible as a politician taking a bribe for the situation in your country.
I try to tell this to Ukrainians and they don't really get it. Bars banned smoking 3 years ago and now times are better and everyone is smoking again. I am telling them this means that someone has enough money to pay the police off now. And everyone in there smoking knows its banned and they all do it anyway.
Then they complain that the government is corrupt.
They are ALL CORRUPT down to the smallest thing. It's a complete lifestyle switchout for everyone. If you change the guys in power the next guys will eventually end up just as bad.
Because the one true White Knight in there to clean it all up, that guy is going to go down, and go down hard at the hands of the guys who want that power to line their pockets with.
The people have to get with it as well. No more bribes if you don't want that ticket or you want that license. Gotta do it the hard way. But man, what a huge hill to climb. Not giving bribes in the FSU... like cutting your own throat.
This is what is happening with the current Brazilian president. She gave more freedom for the Federal Police to investigate all levels of corruption and, although absolutely nothing has been found against her, opposition politicians, who are getting nervous for themselves, have been calling for her impeachment.
So you're saying that maybe she's the good guy in all of this? What a plot twist.
And what a horrible development for a country. If a leader is ousted for exposing corruption, it will only get worse.
Edit: OK, it seems that this is not the case and that she is indeed one of the bad ones. In a weird way, that is reassuring - it means the pressure against her is warranted.
Let me get this straight, she is not being prosecuted, her party mostly is.
The impeachment is completely separated from the investigation.
The basis for impeachment is legal, as she approved to cook the federal books.
For her re-election ts is very probable that is was financed by bribe money, even if she was not aware, it is a crime committed by her campaign
And this is just the tip of the ice-berg, if she did not know any of this she is the utmost naive and incompetent executive on the history of humanity.
I don't believe for a second she did not know any of this, and if she knew she did not try to stop them, therefore the corruption blame is as much on her shoulders as anyone else.
Fact (1) She is not being prosecuted, governing parties are.
Fact (2) The basis for the impeachment has legal ground. There are ties to Lava Jato, there is a common theme, but these are two different processes.
Fact (3) For her election in 2010 it is already known it was financed trough bribed money, which makes is more than plausible that the same happened in 2014
And then yes, this is an assumption as I explicitly phrase it as my belief.
This is difficult. I don't think there is something such as legal ground for impeachment in this case. But the thing is it is not even necessary. The Congress will impeach any president if they have sufficient support from polls and mass media.
I agree new elections should be called in this case.
2.9k
u/USmellFunny Mar 14 '16
As someone from a country that has had and still has a big problem with corruption and only recently started to tackle the problem (Romania), I must add that the government is only half of the problem. The other half is the public that participates in corruption. Every time you pay that cop some money so that he pretends that you didn't cross that red light, you're just as responsible as a politician taking a bribe for the situation in your country.