Former President Dilma Rousseff is impeached

On today’s afternoon (Wednesday, August 31, 2016), the former President of Brazil, Ms. Dilma Vana Rousseff, was officially impeached by the Federal Senate, after voting resulted in 61 in favour of her exit and 20 against. However she still retains her political rights, voted separately from her mandate, making her eligible to new elections. The reunion to decide Rousseff’s destiny had began on last Thursday (August 25) and went through the week (except on Sunday (August 28) until today. Now the Vice-President in exercise of the function of President, Mr. Michel Temer, will be vested as President in an extemporary ceremony at the Chamber of Deputies, and his position remains vacant until new elections, in 2018.

First day – Thursday, August 25

The first day of Rousseff’s trial was intended to read the formal accusations against the former President and to hear the testimonies of accusation witnesses. Ricardo Lewandowski, President of Federal Court of Justice, was replacing the Senate’s President, Renan Calheiros, in order to conduce the trial properly. Just in the beginning of the reunion, around ten parliamentarians rehearsed using regimental resources to prevent the speed of the process, but Lewandowski was strictly against them all and keep on going with the meeting until a deep confusion caused by a discussion between parliamentarians Gleici Hoffmann, Ronaldo Caiado and Lindbergh Farias. Hoffmann declared none of her colleagues had the morality to be there, judging a President, and both senators condemned her behaviour, sparkling a discussion with tons of curses and accusations between themselves. Lewandowski opted for ending the plenary session in order to calm all politicians present there. The session came back afterwards and went on without bigger troubles.

Second day – Friday, August 26

On the second day, Lewandowski and all parliamentarians were supposed to hear the testimonies of defence witnesses. Former ministries of Rousseff’s government were called to testify about her conduct as Head of State, and the defence tried many different ways to disqualify accusation’s witnesses, being them rejected by the President of Federal Court of Justice. However, Caiado and Farias went on another discussion, leading Lewandowski to suspend the reunion and threat both parliamentarians of expelling them from the Plenary. Besides this, there was another discussion happening at the very same time, now between Hoffmann and Calheiros, the President of Senate, but he declared some hours later he was sorry for what he said to his colleague. It was also reported that the senator Ana Amélia had called the Ethics Committee against Hoffmann’s speech in the previous day.

Third day – Saturday, August 27

As the previous session took too long, some defence witnesses were transferred to Saturday, in order not to extend too much the reunion. It was a consensus between these last witnesses that the edict granted by Rousseff were not criminal nor disrespected the budget agreements, despite all proofs shown by the accusation. Since most of parliamentarians were already decided about their votes, the session was only protocol – Rousseff’s opposites were already celebrating their extra official victory and her allies were planning manoeuvres to split the voting in two, being one for her impeachment and the other one for her political rights. This division was successful among parliamentarians some days afterwards.

Fourth day – Monday, August 29

On Monday, parliamentarians were severely anxious, since it was due to be Rousseff’s testimony in front of the Senate and the Brazilian people. The former President came up the pulpit to expatiate about her achievements as a ruling leader and to denounce she was being victim of a coup and that parliamentarians were convicting an innocent person. Rousseff was heavily questioned by all senators, and also by her defenders and detractors, and spoke for around thirteen hours about her government, the illegal negotiations for supplementary credits, and the accusation of fiscal responsibility crime against her. The session ended with Janaína Paschoal, one of the main heads of the impeachment process, questioning Rousseff about the economic crisis in Brazil and about the then President’s inability to deal with it by not hearing Guido Mantega (former ministry of Finance) when he advised her one year before the great eruption, while the people from Workers’ Party (Rousseff’s political party) did not question properly Rousseff, preferring to use their time to extol her government and to claim she was being victim of a parliamentary coup. The reunion took around fourteen hours, and Rousseff was acclaimed by position and opposition for not fail to respond any questions directed to her.

Fifth day – Tuesday, August 30

The following day was remarkable as the last opportunity for both sides to expose their points of views and to discuss the culpability of Rousseff for her manoeuvres to ensnare the National Treasury. Paschoal used her time to defend her position as one of the authors of the impeachment process not to personally offend Rousseff, but to teach her a lesson of honesty and citizenship, alongside the urgent wish to build a better place to her grandchildren. – the jurist also said she was sorry for causing so much suffering to Rousseff, but she couldn’t be quiet watching all this misrepresentation of the Brazilian politics On the other hand, José Eduardo Cardozo, Rousseff’s lawyer, was very incisive when claiming this process was a bogus attempt to belittle the former President’s work as a leader, and that the parliamentarians following the intention of impeach Rousseff would regret this very decision in the future – he even cried when being interviewed by journalists after his defence, alleging he felt tremendously inadmissible with Paschoal citing Rousseff’s grandchildren as a cheap resource to move public opinion.

Sixth day – Wednesday, August 31, 2016

On the last day of the process, it was meant just to vote Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment , but parliamentarians from her party were successful in splitting her judging into two parts – the former President should be voted for her impeachment of continuing her presidential mandate, and after for her right of still be eligible for next elections. In Brazil, if these two things are judged together and the politician is convicted, he loses his political rights and remains ineligible for eight years – just as happened to Fernando Collor de Mello, former President impeached in 1992. Taken the decision, the first voting was extremely tense, but no news to people: with 61 votes in favour and 20 against, and also with no abstentions nor absences, Dilma Rousseff was officially declared impeached of keeping on her presidential mandate. However, in the second voting, there were no consensus among parliamentarians, resulting in 42 in favour of Roussef’s political disablement , 36 against it and 3 abstentions – the minimum quorum required to approve the punishment was 54 favourable votes. With this, Rousseff is not barred from holding public offices nor standing in next election. This last decision was acclaimed by her fellows, but earned mixed reaction on opposition – Hélio Bicudo, jurist and one of the authors of the impeachment process, said he wasn’t as happy as expected, since this last decision did not live up to the Clean Record Law, a federal law that states no politician with court lawsuits are allowed to run for elections. After the ending of the section, Temer had a brief reception to officialise his presidential inauguration and made a speech for open TV channels talking the last news and calling population to keep together throughout the way back to ordinary. Rousseff, meanwhile, is planning a last TV appearance to allege she is suffering a parliamentary coup and that the Senate had convicted an innocent woman due to misogyny and frivolous and unfounded accusations.

Summing up this whole situation: Brazil has now a new President – by far, the country is now on the hands of his interim, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Mr. Rodrigo Maia, since Temer had flew tonight to China, where he joins the G-20 reunion in Shanghai next week – but this is definitely not enough to solve all the problems, since all other corrupt politicians are still ruling the game. Brazil does need an urgent political reform, due to its trouble with endemic corruption and inappropriate conduction of its political representatives. Temer is definitely not the best option to the country, but we do need to learn how to go on step by step when we talk about politics.

Why people should read more carefully political contracts before signing

“I read and agree with the terms of the contract”. Yes, this is the biggest lie ever. Mostly ever we did not read any line of this contract, leading us to have great trouble in dealing with misfortunes and unplanned events. Consumers’ right is one of the hardest things to deal with because of these setbacks, but the most important rule is: if it is precisely described in the contract, it must be accomplished and, since the client sign it, he agrees with everything written down there. If he doesn’t, he must had discussed the terms before signing.

Said that, we can start to think about politics and the terms of its contract, in accordance to what Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in his masterpiece “Leviathan”: to validate the social contract, the population must either accept all terms of it or discuss certain themes to decide what is the best to do about them. It is the very same axiom used by the business to talk about the signing of contracts – so, until here, no mysteries, I guess. So why is there a riot happening now in Brazil, after the former President, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached to continue her government and her Vice-President, Michel Temer, assumed interim the Head Office of the country? Why is people accusing Temer of scammer, claiming he was not legally elected, so he cannot continue his government? And, finally: why people still think Rousseff’s impeachment was a coup?

To get it started, the first thing I should clarify here is: Michel Temer was, in fact, democratically elected to his chair – of Vice-President. He was by Rousseff’s side during the presidential run, and was a very good professional as Vice-President until her exit. Like in any other place in which runs a presidential democratic regime, when the President has something important to do that might prevents him/her to keep up with his/her formal activities and agenda, it is the Vice-President’s obligation to resume business and continue his Chief’s activities, in order to avoid delays in political daily routine. When Rousseff was temporarily away from her duties – for instance, during official visits to countries abroad – it was Temer who used to substitute her, for example, to sign federal decrees. These events did never disquieted the population, who voted also for Temer when voted for Rousseff.

However, when she was accused of sabotage the national finances, she was forced by both Chamber of the Deputies and Federal Senate to leave her chair, and Temer assumed as Interim President of Brazil, which led Rousseff’s supporters riot against his tenure and question the legality of the formal proceedings that formalize Temer’s government. There is no crime nor mistake in his lead, because he was already the Vice-President and just assumed the presidential function due to the exit of the former President. So, here I state the first certainty: there was no coup in Brazil, only the Vice-President assuming the presidential duties and replacing his Chief.

Since there is no coup happening in Brazil, we still have to work on the country’s image abroad – most countries, listening to only a parcel of critiques and news from here, stated their support to Rousseff and started spreading that she was put out due to a coup. However, had these representatives any information about the reasons behind Rousseff’s exit?

Do they know she was taken from the government because she did made up official finances to deceive the National Treasury? Do they know she was one of the Head Officers in Petrobras, the oil company that was recently reduced to an insignificant parcel of what it used to be some years ago because of a billionaire financial gap of $25.3 billions, meanwhile the embezzlement was happening inside the enterprise? If they are all aware of these, and still support her government, that means they have no problems in repeating these actions in their own countries – by these, I mean misusing the public money or defrauding his country’s accountability, or else let their biggest oil company wrack due to an enormous public debt. If they are willing to do any of these, I sincerely do not trust in these countries – in fact, they are the real scammers, not Brazil.

President Salvador Sanchéz Crén, from El Salvador, one of the few countries that did not recognize Temer's government

Summarizing: before voting in any candidate to the Presidency, please read carefully the terms of the contract – which includes the Vice-President – because if you don’t agree with them, just change your candidate. The fact is if you accept a candidate to the Presidency, it means you also accept all his/her back-up gang. Temer was already a great ally to Rousseff before assuming the Vice-Presidency and it didn’t change a bit during her government. Only when she was about to be evicted from the Head Office, Temer started to discuss and make agreements to be put in practice when he assumes interim. He maintained some Ministers nominated by Rousseff, but changed others due to political interests – not differing from any previous President did when they were assuming the Chair. In addition, there is one other detail: it’s been only one week since Roussseff was officially away from her duties and that Temer assumed, so it is too early yet to judge whether he acted correctly or not. There is only one way out: only time…

The political path of Dilma Rousseff and its mischiefs

The international media press has been watching Dilma Rousseff's impeachment process from a far position and, based only on official announcements by the government and its representatives, has been calling it a "coup". Before making any judgment about the legitimacy of the process, it's utterly important to understand its accusations and also its defenses. As a reminder I should say it's not my interest to either support or boycott Rousseff's government – my main reason is to inform how things are going on in a less opinionated way, differing from most newspapers and magazines all over Brazil.

Rousseff was first elected as President in 2010, after a large battle against José Serra, her main opponent, with whom she faced a second voting round and won with 56.05% of valid votes. Before being launched as candidate, Rousseff was not a popular figure in Brazil, like her antecessor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, but she gained his support on her presidential campaign – they are both from the same political party, PT (standing for Worker's Party). During the first round, Rousseff was competing against the following candidates: José Serra (PSDB, standing for Brazilian Social Democracy's Party), Marina Silva (PV, standing for Green Party), Plínio de Arruda Sampaio (PSOL, standing for Socialism and Liberty Party), José Maria Eymael (PSDC, standing for Social Democrat Christian Party), José Maria de Almeida (PSTU, standing for Unified Workers' Socialist Party), Levy Fidélix (PRTB, standing for Brazilian Worker Renewing Party), Ivan Pinheiro (PCB, standing for Brazilian Communist Party), and Rui da Costa Pimenta (PCO, standing for Factory Workers' Cause Party). According to official data, the 2010 presidential election owned around 101 million of valid votes, from which 47 million were meant for Rousseff, and 33 million, for Serra. The Brazilian law states that a second round is mandatory if none of the candidates reach more than 50% of valid votes – Rousseff reached only 46.91%, and Serra, 32.61%. As a result, both candidates fought against each other, and Rousseff won over Serra's percentage of 43.95%.

During her first government, Dilma Rousseff had hard times as a politician, since she had never been elected to any public occupation before. So she didn't have enough political experience, which led her to be truly unpopular amidst parliamentarians, making decision takings harder than usual. Throughout the four years of her command, she had Lula as her mentor and a present figure beside her, since he was a very popular president and has agreements with many important people into political sphere. Although, Rousseff was not a great politician, which led to her unpopularity as President, not only nationally, but also internationally (she doesn't have the same appeal as Lula to make deals with other countries), seen as an impassive Head of State (as she hardly ever negotiates with the Parliament, both Federal Senate and Chamber of Deputies, to approve her Constitutional Amendments).

In 2013, Rousseff faced a great political crisis when people rioting against, at first, the increase of bus tickets' price, but, shortly after, against the whole sickness of Brazilian political system. Her effiency as a President started being questioned, because of her mistakes as an administrator, so when she announced that she was running for re-election in 2014, it was quite unclear if she was capable of reconquering her popularity in time.

For 2014 presidential election, Rousseff faced competition against these candidates: Aécio Neves (PSDB), who faced the second round against her; Marina Silva (PSB, standing for Brazilian Socialist Party); Luciana Genro (PSOL); Eduardo Jorge (PV); Levy Fidélix (PRTB); José Maria de Almeida (PSTU); José Maria Eymael (PSDC); Mauro Iasi (PCB); e Rui da Costa Pimenta (PCO). Although Neves was the candidate who reached the second round, after receiving 33.55% of valid notes (Rousseff received 41.59%), he was almost defeated by increasing popularity of Marina Silva, who tried to run for election by a brand-new party, Rede Sustentabilidade (standing for Sustainability Network) but was ultimately prevented to get the party's registration and ran to another party, PSB. Silva, despite this confusion, owned 22 million votes, which is definitely not negligible.

However, the second round was fought by Rousseff and Neves, with the President being re-elected with 51.64% of valid votes, against 48.36% for Neves. In comparison to her first victory, Rousseff's popularity had clearly decreased, such as her acceptance as a leader among parliamentarians. In addition, Rousseff made a bunch of promises during the presidential run but she simply accomplished exactly the opposite of most of them right after being re-elected. She promised to lower oil's price – the price had a great increase shortly after the election and has been like this since then. She promised to resume the increase of economy – Brazil faces its worst economic crisis, with two following years of recession. She promised to control inflation – the target ceiling was surpassed, and now inflation is at 9.0%, its worst result since 2003. She promised not to increase interest rate – the basic interest rate (Selic) is currently 14.25%, since inflation is forcing its increase. She promised not to increase energy bill – since her re-election, the electric energy's price had increased 44.75%. She also promised many other things, as written in her government plan, presented during the election, containing around 55 promises.

Besides all these unaccomplished campaign promises, since they didn't fully depend on the President's willing, another big trouble led to the massive dissatisfaction with Rousseff: the "pedaling taxes", or the financial maneuver to hide the poor reality behind Brazilian economic situation, presenting lower expenses to a lured society and National Treasury. This is the main accusation against Rousseff on the impeachment process – crime of fiscal responsibility – and that's why people are complaining about the legitimacy of it, as some don't consider "pedaling taxes" a crime because it is a common practice in nowadays' politic sphere. Many Governors from Brazilian states had already practiced this bureaucratic failure, which implies in luring the Treasury by hiding real accounting data, intending to divert public funds to finance the unfortunately endemic corruption. As a result, the main excuse used by Rousseff's defense is that the practice is not illegal and that accusation is not only irresponsible but also an attempt to force a new government over the democratically elected one. Let's be clear: according to the Criminal Code, the "pedaling taxes" practices are implied under the crime of financial statement makeup – a variation of crime of fiscal responsibility -, liable on conviction of one or two years of prison. Also, it can be inferred from the Law n. 1,079, from 04/10/1950, that the President, if caught breaking the Budget Law, can be convicted of its crime and evicted from the Head Office. Finally, the accusation against Rousseff is not an illegitimate attempt of coup, but a real crime committed by her and her political allies, and it must be punished according to what the law says.