It is difficult to park in Brasilia. This is because more people have cars than were planned for when the city was designed 50 years ago. The original city planners still had the feudal mindset of 1950s Latin America which said that only a small proportion of people were going to have motor cars. (Actually, this makes it even less forgivable that they did not design a proper public transport system, but we'll let that one go.) Although the distribution of wealth is still restricted in Brazil as a whole, evidence of it in the larger cities shows that increased democracy has brought increased prosperity to more people and it is not too fanciful to attribute this situation to legitimate demands for access to wealth expressed through the popular vote.
One of the results of this parking difficulty is that I take my wife to her work near the Lower House of Congress to avoid her spending half an hour looking for a parking place. Yesterday, as we crawled through traffic and approached the entrance of Congress a tall, elegantly dressed man of mixed race passed in front of us, his hair plaited into dozens of small, tight tresses in the manner favoured by black singers. A little further on, a middle-aged white man was conducting a group of indigenous Brazilians dressed in shirts and trousers but wearing their feathered headdresses.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the gentleman with the plaits was either working in or visiting Parliament either as a senior civil servant (judging by his expensive suit) or as a representative of a black Brazilian constituency. As for the indians, there had been a large encampment of them on the grassy area half a kilometre from Congress last week so it is possible that the group we saw were dealing with related business, or perhaps other business of their own.
Whatever the facts behind these suppositions, these two chance sightings remind us how far Brazil has come since its military dictatorship slouched offstage a quarter of a century ago. While Brazil's dictatorship, compared to those of Argentina and Chile, was relatively bland (perhaps 500 people were ‘disappeared’ as opposed to thousands in the neighbouring countries) the overnight eradication of democracy by generals frightened out of the half-portion of wits they possessed by a nonexistent Communist threat remains a shocking stain on Brazil's history. Nevertheless, the reinstallation of democracy that has led to black and indigenous groups demanding and getting their representation in Congress, has been carried out with remarkable success, except for three elements.
The first is the constitutional structure that allows multiple parties to exist (I believe the current number is 27) in Congress. This structure caters to the natural tendency in Mediterranean societies where many desire to be chiefs and none wish to be indians. Thus, many political parties must have many chiefs and any party that wishes to rule the country must do so by means of forming alliances and such alliances are bought by handing out ministerial or other government-controlled posts according to an individual's party rather than his or her actual competence. At least recent moves have tried to control the movement of politicians between parties, which had become ridiculous; about 18 months ago one deputy changed parties three times in one day. This loosely-controlled situation leads to elected representatives spending for time playing politics than actually running the country.
The second problem is more apparent to outsiders than to Brazilians: the impunity of those who tortured and murdered during the military regime. Brazilians pass off their reluctance to bring such people to justice as being evidence of their affable, peace-loving national character. Others might say that the pre-emptive amnesty agreement the military insisted on imposing before they left power is an example of both military and civilian cowardice. Military cowardice because those who claimed their actions were saving the state are afraid to defend those actions before a Truth Commission, and civilian cowardice because subsequent governments that did not sign the amnesty have been afraid to tear it up and bring to justice people who performed unspeakable deeds. As I write, there is talk of a Truth Commission being instituted but holding one's breath in anticipation of its achieving anything would be a definite health risk.
Finally, we come to the third problem with the reinstalled democratic system and this is one which all Brazilians are quite happy to talk about: corruption. The noxious crew that swaggered into power behind Luis Inácio Lula Da Silva had to be replaced almost to a man within a few years thanks to their cynical financial corruption. As if that were not sufficient, many of these same individuals, having spent a year or two in the political wilderness, are now sneaking back into positions of power, some of them onto the Congressional Ethics Committee, an irony not lost on the Brazilian public. If anything rots the moral fibre of a country it is widespread use of drugs/alcohol, and also financial corruption. Unfortunately, Brazil is awash with both and there is little prospect of the effective reduction of either element thanks to the country's preference for rhetoric over action.
An article in a news magazine this week refers to the recent legislation on environmental protection, saying that the new laws are generally sensible, but will they be kept? The article referred to the ongoing deforestation of the Amazon, which continues in spite of existing legislation. What is lacking here, and what would be present in a truly democratic society such as the USA in the same circumstances, is a sense of outrage and indignation against illegal deforestation. The simple question would be asked: if these actions are against the law, why is the government not doing anything to stop them? Just like the British with Margaret Thatcher, Brazil has elected a female First Minister with a reputation for toughness but an incapacity to be truly tough. The inefficiency of British democracy, together with the lack of competent opposition, allowed Mrs Thatcher to rampage for eleven years, tearing great rents in the social fabric until she was eased into her padded cell by the democratic processes within her own party. In spite of its democratic advances, Brazil has tolerated corruption through two presidential periods under Luis Inácio Lula Da Silva and to date things are not looking too bright under Brazil's own version of the Rubber Lady.
No comments:
Post a Comment