Brazil erupts: Football, filthy lucre and fury

Brazil is one of the world’s emerging powers, host of the 2014 Fifa World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. So why is the middle class increasingly angry?

By Friday 21 June, two weeks in to what had become the largest protests in Brazil in 20 years, happening to coincide with the Fifa Confederations Cup, the activists were demonstrating a clear sense of strategy. By mid-afternoon that day, a favourite for elite weekend travel, they had succeeded in blocking access roads to Guarulhos, São Paulo’s overloaded international airport, the largest in South America. Some desperate passengers abandoned their cars on the motorway and continued on foot, lugging their bags to the terminal, only to find it paralysed.

If those passengers made it through, many of the flight crews and other essential staff did not: by 6pm, when the airport should have been at its busiest with weekend departures, the monitors were showing a long list of flights suffering “technical delay” – as though a mechanical virus had attacked the airport. By then, shock troops had moved on to the blocked motorway and not only was it impossible to enter the airport but there was a ban on leaving it.

The protesters’ blockade was made easier by the already parlous condition of São Paulo’s transport infrastructure. This sprawling city of more than 11 million people, a chaotic jumble of typical low-rise villas and huge skyscrapers, of shopping malls, sprawling slums and luxury gated communities, is, as one local commentator observed, the transport equivalent of a patient on the verge of a heart attack. It does not take much – sometimes just a drop of rain – to push São Paulo over the edge. Its potholed side streets and urban motorways clog up. For those who do ride the buses, often on long commutes to distant suburbs, it is a daily torture.

In the week leading up to the airport blockade, the city suffered serial heart attacks as protesters targeted its arteries, turning São Paulo’s flyovers and urban motorways into temporary protest playgrounds and occupying such main thoroughfares as the central Avenida Paulista. It’s not just São Paulo: so far, more than 100 cities have been affected, resulting in four deaths, scores of injuries and hundreds of thousands of reais’ worth of damage. But who are the protesters? And how did what had begun as a complaint about a small hike in bus fares become a nationwide movement?

***

In the search for explanations, it has become customary to point out that the protesters did not seem to match the demands they were advancing. It had all begun with Passe Livre (“free pass”), sniffily described by local pundits as a group of no more than 45 students, many of them enrolled at São Paulo’s top universities, protesting against an increase in bus fares of roughly 8p. They were demanding free public transport; as one early slogan declared, “If the fares go up, the city stops.” In the case of São Paulo, it was no idle threat.

And yet, according to the São Paulo-based news magazine Veja, these were not people who ever rode the buses: they were protesting, some reportedly told the magazine, on behalf of their family maids, who could easily spend a quarter of their monthly earnings just getting to work. If that was the case, Veja tartly observed, it might have been more effective to ask their parents to give their domestic staff a pay rise.

But Veja, like many of its well-off readers, had completely misread a rapidly moving situation. At the end of the first week of protests, the police in Rio de Janeiro unwisely did to these children of the middle classes what they routinely do to criminals, or those guilty of no crime worse than poverty: they took off their badges and beat them up. In the age of mobile-phone cameras, it proved to be an error. The images of police brutality spread rapidly through social media and fuelled nationwide indignation. The second week of protests would be very different.

By Monday evening, 17 June, people all over Brazil turned out to say: “Basta!” The call had gone out on Facebook, and tens of thousands of students responded – as did their parents. By Thursday the protesters numbered more than a million. But still the elite were slow to catch on. On Monday morning, a senior executive of a multinational company declared the planned protest “unimportant”. That evening, his journey home was blocked by a high tide of marchers flowing down São Paulo’s motorways. Astounded to see a well-dressed middle-aged man among the crowd, the stranded executive asked the man why he was protesting. “For a better Brazil,” he replied.

For the well-heeled elite, Brazil is already better. They are the beneficiaries of the past decade of high growth, wealthy enough to buy their way out of the daily inconveniences inflicted on the less well-off by chronic corruption, creaking infrastructure and high taxes. Inside a bulletproof limousine, the executive relaxes as his chauffeur negotiates the potholed roads and congestion. If he is in a hurry he can take to the skies: São Paulo is reported to have more private helicopters than any other city on earth and a helipad is an essential accessory to accompany the high-rise buildings that the boom has spawned.

Traffic is not the only inconvenience that can be distanced by wealth. Veja had devoted the edition of the week before the protests to the crime wave that São Paulo’s police seem powerless or disinclined to check: Brazil has a murder rate on a par with drug-plagued Mexico and everyone has a personal story of violent crime. The rich hire private security. The rest are at the mercy of a deteriorating public order. The rich pay for private education and health. The rest suffer the chaos of public provision hollowed out by corruption and bureaucratic indifference. Cocooned by privilege, the corporate executive was obli - vious to the mounting frustration of the middle class until its members physically surrounded his car.

It took a week for Brazil’s ruling class to understand the depth of anger in the country. Brazilians don’t do this, I was told. The ubiquitous national flags the marchers draped around their shoulders, and the home-made signs that they carried, spoke of a nation whose main collective passion is football. Brazilians, in fact, have not done this since they turned out in their hundreds of thousands 20 years ago to demand the end of the presidency of Fernando Collor de Mello, a man who once held the fiercely contested title of most corrupt politician in Brazil.

***

In 1990, Collor became Brazil’s first directly elected president, following the end of the military dictatorship that had ruled from 1964 to 1985. He resigned two years later in an attempt to forestall impeachment. Although the senate disqualified him from holding elected office for eight years, he avoided prison, and in 2006 he was elected, as a friend of mine put it with heavy irony, um senador da nação – a senator for the nation. Like Collor, other notoriously corrupt political figures have managed to escape prison by taking advantage of the weak legal system, with its delays and obfuscation.

When the trade unionist and leader of the Workers’ Party (PT) Luiz Inácio da Silva – Lula – was elected in 2002, Brazilians invested him with all their hopes for change. But ten years on, despite a notable redistri - bution of wealth that lifted many of Brazil’s poorest out of poverty, the pattern of corruption had not changed. Nor had underinvestment in public services, despite personal tax levels on a par with Scandinavia’s. A series of corruption scandals forced several of Lula’s closest aides from office, while his unpopular son’s rapid ascent to the ranks of Brazil’s millionaires added to middle-class indignation.

Lula remains popular, as does his chosen successor, Dilma Rousseff, who had held no elected office before being parachuted into the presidency in the 2010 elections on the strength of his endorsement. But the myth is beginning to fray. Last year the federal court convicted 25 aides, representatives and congressmen, for both the PT and allied parties, on charges of buying votes to get government legislation passed. In April a judicial investigation into Lula’s own role in the corruption scandal began.

The PT also lost ground in local elections last October, despite personal appearances on the stump by Lula. Voting is compulsory in Brazil, but more than 20 per cent of voters in recent elections have spoiled their ballots. Most of those who spoiled their ballots are young – the Facebook generation that is now out on the streets.

So deep is the discontent that the unthinkable has happened. In this most footballcrazed nation, at a time when Brazil is hosting the Confederations Cup, the mood has turned against an event that the government anticipated would secure its place in the hearts of Brazilians for good: next year’s Fifa World Cup. We need schools, not more football stadiums, the marchers are chanting.

Friends listed the complaints. The stadiums had cost twice as much as the original budget for the tournament and though the sports facilities had been built the promised transport links had not. An ostentatious national stadium had gone up in the federal capital, Brasilia, a city with no team in the top division. And though the World Cup had been marketed as an event for the whole nation, the cost of the tickets was far out of reach for all but the wealthy. As the opening game of the Confederations Cup began at the Brasilia stadium, a few hundred protesters burned tyres outside. A week later, as many as 60,000 attempted to break through a cordon of riot police to storm the Mineirão Stadium in Belo Horizonte, where Mexico were playing Japan. When the Brazilian football hero Pelé told fans to forget the protests and enjoy the football, he was greeted with derision.

Dilma’s ratings had begun to slide even before the protests. The crisis has exposed her poor political instincts. As the demonstrations spread, she – and the entire political class – seemed paralysed. On 18 June she flew to São Paulo to consult Lula. Two days later the PT made its worst blunder: a message went out on Facebook calling on the PT faithful to turn out at the demonstration in São Paulo that evening and create a “red wedge” on the Avenida Paulista. The attempt to coopt the protests was misjudged and it went badly wrong. The PT turned out in numbers, red flags flying, to be met by anger from the crowd. To chants of “No political parties here!” the flags were torn down and the “red wedge” ignominiously scattered.

***

For the old left, accustomed to think of itself as the champion of the underprivileged, the rejection of the PT on the streets of São Paulo was a profound shock. It resonated in conversations across the city. At the offices of one NGO, two old friends argued fiercely with each other. One was convinced that the demonstrations had taken an ugly turn, that they were out of control, that anarchists and dark forces were bent on creating chaos that would give the right an excuse to intervene. The other pounded his fist on the table as he disagreed. For him, the voice on the streets was Brazil’s best hope.

In another office across town, a left-leaning lawyer echoed the fear that the demonstrators’ rejection of the PT showed that the people were being manipulated by extremists – anarchists or fascists, or both. To the suggestion that the protesters felt that politics as usual had failed them, she replied angrily: “But politics has delivered. There have been real gains through politics.”

She had a point. If these events signal the beginning of a Brazilian revolution, it is a revolution of rising expectations, born among people who have benefited from the PT’s redistribution of wealth. Now they are judging the party for what it has failed to deliver – cleaner politics, investment in public goods and an effective and fair judiciary.

On Monday 17 June, the mayor of São Paulo, Fernando Haddad, refused to reverse the bus-fare rise. Two days later Haddad and the mayor of Rio de Janeiro capitulated, following the example of Porto Alegre, João Pessoa, Cuiabá, Manaus, Natal, Recife and Vitória, where the authorities had already backed down. Haddad reportedly spent much of Thursday puzzling over his budget, trying to find the money to fund this enforced generosity. But by the time the bus-fare rise was rescinded, it was no longer about the buses. Perhaps it never had been. When Dilma addressed the nation, late on Friday, her speech was judged too little, too late. The following day, 250,000 people were back on the streets. Far from bringing the protests to an end, it seemed like just the beginning.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue.net

Members of a youth team sharpen their skills. Photograph: AP Photo / Felipe Dana

This article first appeared in the 01 July 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Brazil erupts

Getty
Show Hide image

Is TTIP a threat or an opportunity?

TTIP offers potentially huge opportunities to both Europe and the US - we should keep an open mind on what the final agreement will mean.

Barack Obama made it abundantly clear during his visit to the UK that if Britain left the European Union then it would be quite some time before we would be able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States. All the more reason to examine carefully what the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will mean for the UK. For Labour this is especially important because a number of trade unionists and Party members have expressed concerns about what TTIP could mean.

The economic worth of such a partnership between the European Union and the US has been questioned and it has been frequently stated that TTIP could give multinational companies unprecedented influence and undermine the British NHS.

With regard to the economic benefits of TTIP there are few that would argue that there are no economic gains to be achieved through the partnership. The question is to what extent economic growth will be stimulated. On the positive side the European Commission has argued that an agreement could bring economic gains of between €68 billion to €119 billion per year to the EU (0.3% to 0.5% of GDP) and €50 billion to €95 billion (0.2% to 0.4% of GDP) to the US. For Britain, this means that an agreement could add up to £10 billion annually to the UK economy.

On the negative side, a study commissioned by the European United Left/Nordic Green Left Group in the European Parliament has maintained that TTIP would bring only “limited economic gains”. These gains have to be weighed, it was argued, against the “downside risks”. Those risks have been identified as coming from the alignment of standards in areas such as consumer safety, environmental protection and public health.

These are important concerns and they should not be quickly dismissed. They are made all the more important because the existence of already low tariffs between the EU and the US make the negotiations to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade all the more significant.

There are a number of areas of concern. These include food standards and the regulation of GM crops and the worry that the EU’s focus on applying the environmental precautionary principle might be weakened. The European Commission, which has a responsibility for negotiating TTIP on behalf of the EU, is however acutely aware of these concerns and is mindful of its legal responsibility to uphold, and not to in any way weaken, the agreed legal standards to which the EU adheres. A concern has been expressed that irrespective of what European law may say, TTIP could undermine those standards. This I find difficult to accept because the ‘rule of law’ is absolutely central to the negotiations and the adoption of the final agreement.

But the EU is mindful of this concern and has brought forward measures which have sought to address these fears. The latest proposals from the Commission clearly set out that it is the right of individual governments to take measures to achieve public policy objectives on the level that they deem appropriate. As the Commission’s proposal states, the Agreement shall not affect the right of the parties to regulate within their own territories in order to achieve policy objectives including “the protection of public health, safety, environmental or public morals, social or consumer protection or promotion and protection of cultural diversity”.

Of course, this is not to suggest that there should not be vigilance, but equally I believe it would be wrong to assume the theoretical problems would inevitably become reality.

The main area of concern which has been expressed in Britain about TTIP relates to the NHS and the role of the private sector. Under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions investors would be able to bring proceedings against a foreign government that is party to the treaty. This would be done in tribunals outside the domestic legal system. If a Government is found to be in breach of its treaty obligations the investor who has been harmed could receive monetary compensation or other forms of redress.

The concern is that the ISDS arrangements will undermine the ability of democratically elected governments to act on behalf of their citizens. Some have maintained that measures to open up the NHS to competition could be made irreversible if US companies had to be compensated when there is a change of policy from a future Labour Government.

In response to these concerns the European Commission has proposed an Investor Court System. This would be based on judgements being made by publicly appointed and experienced judges and that cases would only be brought forward if they were precisely defined. Specifically, it is proposed that cases would be limited to targeted discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion, or nationality, expropriation without compensation or the denial of justice.

Why, you might ask, is there a need at all for a trans-national Investor Court System? The reason in part lies in the parlous state of the judicial systems in some of the relatively recent EU accession countries in Eastern Europe. To be frank, it is sadly the case that there are significant shortcomings in the judiciary of some countries and the rule of law is, in these cases, more apparent than real. It is therefore not unreasonable for investors to have an international framework and structure which will give them confidence to invest. It should also be noted that there is nothing proposed in TTIP which contradicts anything which is already in UK law.

We need to remember too that this is not only about US investment in Europe, it is also about European investment in the US. No US-wide law prohibits discrimination against foreign investors, and international law, such as free trade and investment agreements like TTIP, cannot be invoked in US courts. The Investor Court System would therefore benefit European companies, especially Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. 

It is of course impossible to come to a definitive conclusion about these provisions because the negotiations are ongoing. But it would surely be unwise to assume that the final agreement would inevitably be problematic.

This is especially true regarding the NHS. Last year Unite the Union commissioned Michael Bowsher QC to provide an opinion. His opinion was that “TTIP does pose a threat to a future government wishing to take back control of health services”. The opinion does not express a view on whether TTIP will “force” the privatisation of the health service (as some have claimed) and Bowsher admits that much of the debate is “conducted at a rather speculative level” and he has been unable to produce any tangible evidence to support his contention about future problems. On the other hand, it is the case that there is nothing in the proposed agreement which would alter existing arrangements for compensation. There are of course many legal opinions which underpin the view that existing legal arrangements would continue. While I accept that it is theoretically possible for the Bowsher scenario to occur, it is nevertheless extremely improbable. That is not to say that there ought not to be watertight safeguards in the agreement, but let us not elevate the extremely improbable to the highly likely.

A frequently heard criticism of TTIP is that the negotiations between the US and the EU are being conducted in ‘secret’.  Greenpeace, for example, has strongly sought to make this a central part of their campaign.  Although the Commission publishes EU position papers and negotiating proposals soon after they are tabled, it is impossible to see how complex negotiations of this kind can be practically conducted in public.  However, I believe that the draft agreement should be made public well before the final decisions are taken.

Once the negotiations have been concluded, the draft agreement will be presented to the European Council and the European Parliament, both of which have to agree the text. The European Council is, of course, made up of representatives of the governments of the EU and the European Parliament is democratically elected. Both Houses of the British Parliament will also debate the draft and there will need to be parliamentary approval of the agreement.

Transparency and democratic scrutiny are two things which there cannot be too much of. But, in practical terms, it is difficult to see how there could be more of either without making it nigh on impossible to secure such a complex agreement. Unite, of which I am a member, and others are quite right to express their concerns about TTIP, but let’s not exaggerate the potential difficulties and let’s not assume that the worst case scenario will always come about. TTIP offers potentially huge opportunities to both Europe and the US, and we should therefore at least keep an open mind on what the final agreement will mean.

Wayne David is the Labour MP for Caerphilly and is Shadow Minister for Political Reform and Justice. He is a former Shadow Europe Minister and was a junior minister in the last Labour government.