This article can be particularly enlightening to those completely unfamiliar with the situation and with the forces involved: https://theintercept.com/2016/03/18/brazil-is-engulfed-by-ruling-class-corruption-and-a-dangerous-subversion-of-democracy/

Well, we've ousted the Fernando Collor from office in 1992. What's rather bizarre, though, is the lack of charges against Dilma herself due to the absolute lack of evidence against her, coupled with the fact that literally all politicians championing the impeachment are heavily involved in corruption schemes. For instance, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the one actually in charge of carrying the legal process, against whom there are countless accusations has recently become, by 10 votes to 0 in the Supreme Court, a defendant in the very corruption scandal he is using to topple the Government.

I learned about it from Hank Green on youtube lol. Apparently a fifth of those looking to impeach Rousseff are currently being investigated for corruption. The more amazing thing is the former president who left with an 80% approval rating is being dragged through the mud.

I learned about it when I saw this thread.

It's been talked about by the British news for a while. I think the general vibe is that using political slight of hand to grant someone immunity is appalling, but there's little support of the rather violent looking protests either. Mostly the reports focus on what the implications will be for the Olympics.

Also, in what sense have American politics been extraordinarily exciting? :p

I should note that I don't follow the news regularly, so maybe it was covered.

Steephie, not sure where you live but American news hasn't made a single mention of it as far as I'm aware

The Netherlands.

@stefan
Here in Mexico, I don't follow the tv news, but there's people praising Brazil for being such an example (here we have a corruption scandal for a *big* mansion our president got apparently as a bribe from a buildeing company, everything very dirty but of course no empeachment, no trial, pure farse).
However there are leftist newspapers portraying something similar to what you describe. I'v also read an interview to the sem terra, and I think they have very interesting things to say too.

Yes I have been following it. The American media (like Bloomberg) portrayal has been blindly supportive of the putschists and rightwing forces pushing for a return to military rule. That's right, they openly call for military intervention against Rousseff. The judge who is not allowing Silva to be in Rousseff's cabinet is an activist from the opposition party. The idea that Silva could get immunity (for stuff he didn't even do) simply by being in the cabinet is also a hoax being used as a pretense for the judiciary to undermine the government. He would not be immune from investigation and trial by the Supreme Court.

Well, firstly, thanks for the information!

@Patburu, Hank Green's video seems pretty accurate. I do believe the Greenwald article is a good addition to it. And regarding Lula, it is interesting that two prosecutors from the State of São Paulo recently asked for his preventive arrest (which led to him being appointed Minister), arguing he could potentially call and rely on overwhelming popular support and thus undermine the ongoing investigations.

Apart from the obvious absurd of arresting him because of what he could do (they do not mention the risk of evasion from the country, and he has so far cooperated with the police whenever asked, and in spite of that he was forcefully carried to be questioned in a clearly illegal act), it should be noted that he has not been charged with anything. They actually ask the arrest of someone so far not accused of any crime.

@Octavious That's far more moderate than I would have expected! And what do they say the implications will be? I daresay no one around here is worried about that.

On the issue of shielding Lula by placing him on a Ministry... Naturally, those supporting the overthrow of the government are absolutely outraged, but even the left-wing is not particularly happy with it either. I guess the President opted for that because the prosecutors and judge Moro were clearly doing all they can to somehow create situations which the media can then use to portray him as a criminal and place that beyond doubt, even though he has not been formally accused.

Several prominent law experts have expressed grave concern regarding the consistent disrespect of due process and the Constitution as a whole, and things got even more bizarre this week. The prosecutors from São Paulo asked for his imprisonment on Thursday. The judge randomly selected to concede it came under severe pressure and, as a result, on Friday the decision was given to Moro, who has rightfully been accused of a strong anti-PT bias.

On Monday the Government announced his nomination for the single most important Ministry. On Monday night, Moro (illegally) leaked to the press tape recordings made of Lula's phone calls with no clear judicial goal and, though the tapes (including calls with President Dilma) do not record anything substantial and are, at best, ambiguous regarding the intentions of certain acts, but definitely not incriminating, the media tried to portray them as undeniable evidence of criminal activity.

On Tuesday Lula took office, only to have that act suspended by a judge who, it was soon revealed, had a strong anti-government bias. This judge's suspension of his nomination was suspended soon after, but, after several legal actions were taken with the same goal of keeping Lula out of office, the issue went to the Supreme Court.

There, for reasons I do not know, the most anti-government of all the eleven judges, who had been seen last week dining with opposition senator José Serra (PSDB/SP), mentioned on wikileaks as willing to work in congress towards multinational oil companies-friendly legislation, had the power to effectively suspend Lula's position as Minister until the Court Assembles next Monday (the 28th).

I'd say, if you ask me, all of this is absurd and both sides are going all-in. It doesn't make nominating someone to such a position under these circumstances (though Lula can indeed be very useful to the government if he takes office) perfectly acceptable, but it was definitely an answer to several other weird things.

Oh, and the American Primaries have been very surprising. I might not post here often, but I definitely keep up with the interesting threads, and, for Latin America, or at least for Brazilians, both the Republican and Democratic primaries so far have been surprising.

@Principians Could you share this interview with me? Also, I'm curious about which papers portray which views.

We'd love to be an example (on many aspects, Dilma's government has tried to push forward anti-corruption measures, but, unsurprisingly, Congress did not approve them). But we're not. Here is an example: http://www.al.sp.gov.br/noticia/?id=367482 - This is the website of the Government of São Paulo, held by the main opposition party (PSDB) since the 90s. The photograph portrays Moro, who claims to have no connection whatsoever to any political party, alongside João Dória Jr, a businessman and PSDB's likely candidate to municipal elections, and Fernando Capez, 'President of theSão Paulo State Legislature, only a few weeks after a scandal in which the Governor of São Paulo is accused of commanding a scheme of diverting money directed to buying food supplies for the State's schools.

Fernando Capez is one of the main actors of the scheme. It is very hard to believe Mr. Moro is actually worried about corruption first and foremost.

@Putin Those calling for military intervention are, luckily, a loud minority among the anti-government protesters. And while you're absolutely right that Lula does not gain immunity from prosecution, it does seem that he was called in order to be judged by the Supreme Court only. Even though he is the best possible addition to the Government as of now, his nomination was clearly a reaction to what was happening. Also, that's the only reason to explain the timing of his nomination.

Anyway, this 'In Iran, CIA and SIS propaganda assets were to conduct an increasingly intensified effort through the press, handbills and the Tehran clergy in a campaign designed to weaken the Mossadeq government in any way possible," Wilber wrote.' (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/19/politics/cia-iran-1953-coup/) is not that much different from what one experiences watching Brazilian media.

Unsurprisingly, corruption allegations later unproven were the backbone of the campaigns against Brazilian Presidents Getúlio Vargas (who ended up shooting himself in 1954 due to this concerted effort to oust him), Juscelino Kubitschek (who managed to remain in office during his term, in spite of two coup attempts) and João Goulart (ultimately deposed by the Military Coup in 1964).

It does feel weird to watch all this happening (again), but I do hope (that, among other things) foreign coverage might help unfold some facts and contradictions many people here are often impressively unable (or unwilling) to see. Or maybe I'm just raising your overall awareness of the issue, but, well. That's something, already.

stefanodangello: I lived in São Paulo two years and kept returning back to visit my family for another three. I'm in the States now, where this hasn't come up in the news as far as I can tell. I do watch Spanish news regularly, though. TVE increased coverage of the Petrobras scandal around when the preventative arrest order was issued for Lula. At the time, coverage was somewhat sympathetic in that it mentioned that opposition parties opposed the order, which they considered excessive. Coverage turned quite negative when the tapes were revealed and the audio of a damning conversation between Lula and Rousseff played on the broadcast. It was further commented that appointing Lula to head a government ministry effectively put him out of reach of lower courts and into the hands of the Supreme Court, which is packed with appointees of Lula and Rousseff.

The leak was illegal and proves the bias of the judge. It also is being taken completely out of context.

Tss, Steephie22, go read Nos.nl once in a while :)

Don't judge me, I've seen the news like twice in the last seven days!

The first time they caught that terrorist in Belgium, the second time the terrorist attack in Belgium.
Talk about timing, I guess..

Hi. Stefano. I'm Brazilian. I agree to your general reasoning and find it very useful to bring here this this subject. I read foreign newspapers daily and I can say they are most aligned with the mainstream Brazilian media. Not surprisingly, for sure.

Even more, it is amazing that after centuries of corruption practices in government, Dilma is distinguished for the extension she allowed the prosecutors and the police go. I feel that's the very real reason the media and the political class are worried and push for the impeachment. Once she is out, the whole carwash investigations will fade.

It seems the most of the support population offer to the impeachment process comes from the economic disaster we live today. Not different from the Collor times. If Dilma could be celebrated for her fight AGAINST corruption, her economic policy choices are completely misguided.

I am brasilian too and totally agree with curupira. Dilma´s government is a disaster, both politically and economically but the reason´s to the impeachment process are a complete bullshit. Anyway, I really don´t see other end and other way to get things back in track here then overthrowing this government one way or another (better a TSE impugnation and another election then this fake impeachment).

Is it that Dilma's economic politics are a disaster?
Or could it be that PT economic politics were doomed to this? Maybe Lula was just lucky that oil prices were high, and Dilma has just had bad luck that a world crisis that affected China and, in general, the business of raw materials, struck durgin her goverment?

related with thos questions is the interview I mentioned previously:

@stefano
Here the interview I read the other day (in spanish) http://subversiones.org/archivos/122156

The main 'leftist' sources of information in Mexico are laJornada http://www.jornada.unam.mx/, proceso www.proceso.com.mx/, and aristegui aristeguinoticias.com.

Of course, those are a minority among media, and they are mostly consumed only in Mexico City.

And there are many more to the left, but smaller projects, among which I follow subversiones http://subversiones.org/ (that's where I rad the interview)

The combination of quantitative easing also flooded Brazil with liquidity whereupon companies racked up large debts in dollars and the dollar has continued to climb relative to the real putting enormous pressure on the economy. This problem has affected emerging markets everywhere.

principians and Putin33 have added good points, but I would to build a bit over it.

Low oil prices are good to Brazil. Brazil is a net exporter of crude oil, but a net importer of oil products, which prices go along with that of crude oil. Summing up, Brazil has a large deficit in oil sector balance. So, low oil and oil products prices are good to Brazil, not bad.

1. China losing speed is bad to Brazil, because of the prices of iron ore, but China imports of raw materials are still growing by volume, so real demand for these basic products are still rising. Are the low prices today an adverse shock or were the high prices till 2013 a postive but transitory shock? I pick the later choice. Australia is even more dependent on China than Brazil, are they in such a turmoil?
2. The bad policy choices were indeed bad because the PT government has been missbehaving fiscal accounts year after year, in order to spending much more than he could. So, it was not a surprise what we get now, but the plain sight outcome of a missguided economic policy.
3. All the good social achievements this government has reached are now in danger, because of its bad foundations, and now it can be lost. Have all of this paid off? Couldn't we have done a litlle less but for a litlle longer?
4. Lula and Dilma have choosen to ally which PMDB, this way agreeing to the corruption way of public management. Again, they are now being charged the costs of their choices.

The Australian economy isn't exactly great right now, but at least we didn't horribly mismanage it. So it's partly China's fault...

I am sad for Brazil and for the entire Americas today.

From what I've read, its a bad situation no matter how you put it. Dilma is connected to the Petrobras scandal and also seemed to abuse Brazil's state-owned banks to pad government finances before her re-election. The people trying to impeach her are either suspected of corruption, currently under investigation for corruption, or under other criminal charges. That, and apparently a third of the Chamber of Deputies also have cases against them, but they're immune for some reason? Idk. I know a lot more about the Brazilian economy than I do Brazilian politics.

No, she is one of the few who isn't connected to the personas scandal. The deputies mostly didn't even refer to the trumped up fiscal responsibility charges that were the basis for impeachment. The congress hasn't even analyzed her budget. They just want the PT out.

Petrobas.

I'm clearly missing something important in all this. My understanding is that over 2/3 of the lower house was needed to vote for this to get it started, and over half the upper house. And she is only removed from office if two thirds of the upper house conclude she is guilty.

How on earth did she get so many enemies? Getting enough people furious enough with you to get impeached seems quite a tall order.

Like I said before, she is completelly unable to build a political base. She just kept trading ministeries (we reached 39 ministeries at some point) and cash liberation for deputies to get the support she needs on the congress. When she lost popularity this bought political base just vanished. Even people who are part of his governent until one week ago voted for the impeachment. And the President of the Chamber of Deputires who started all this is charged with many corruption process but because of some laws about "privileged" forum and deputies imunity can´t be sacked.
Don´t even try to understand brasilian politics.....

Why they couldn't they wait for elections instead of taking shortcuts to launch their neoliberal agenda? Time for Brazil to move to a parliamentary system if this is how it's going to work.

ADDRESSING THE INITIAL QUESTION ::LOL ...Europe and Nth America is that seriously all the opinion you need.. No wonder the rest of the world ie most of us want you too fuggin die..( Watching the downfall of Rome )

Octavious, if you have time to do it, try to find a version of yesterday's session with subtitles. After seeing all the Deputies justify their vote, it becomes cristal clear how it is absolutely impossible to build a political base without resorting to questionable things. Two thirds of the lower house are accused of some sort of crime.

Also, and alarmingly: The Chamber of Deputies is required to vote whether or not to open the process of impeachment, which will be judged in the Senate. Yesterday, the lower house should have voted based solely on the report approved, in spite of its bizarre inconsistencies, in a special commission of the Chamber of Deputies. The Supreme Court also ruled that the vote should be exclusively based on the acceptance or not of the accusation based on the two crimes listed on the report (two supposedly ilegal financial operations. She is not personally accused of involvement in any corruption scandal, a rarity around here).

Of the 367 votes in favour of accepting the impeachment proceedings, I tell you less than ten mentioned the existence of the report or the crimes it lists. The overwhelming majority claimed to be voting for their families, allies, children, against corruption, for God or for the future of the country (the Vice-President, who actively conspires against the President has released a strongly neoliberal government program a while ago, called 'A bridge to the future). Usually, a combination of the above.

"Two thirds of the lower house are accused of some sort of crime"

What does that mean? Are members of the lower house immune from prosecution, or are we simply saying that two thirds have had accusations made against them without any evidence backing it up?

At the end of the day, the only people who can keep politics reasonably clean are the people. They must use their votes wisely in all elections, national and local. If the people are willing to accept politicians who are a bit dodgy, or are too lazy to do any research about the people they can vote for, you will end up with both houses full of them.

Just saw this on facebook: How to explain to a foreigner what's going on.

- What's happening in Brazil?
- Some want to oust the President.
- Why?
- Oh, they've discovered a huge corruption scandal which has fueled a serious economic crisis...
- Is she involved?
- No, but they say that, if she was competent enough, it wouldn't have happened.
- And who do they want to place as President?
- A guy actually involved...

Octavious - from my understanding, they're immune from prosecution unless its done by the Supreme Court. Lower courts can't touch them. But I'm just learning this all right now too.

And this is just commentary I'm repeating from a reddit discussion on the topic, but apparently some deputies were dedicating their votes to various right-wing figures from the military dictatorship era (including those in charge of death squads?) and calling for an outright return to military rule. They were a minority, but its still...disheartening.

And tens of thousands were in crowds around the country cheering it on. Brings to mind the quote "So this is how democracy falls...to thunderous applause"

Said Brazilian on reddit was also very pessimistic about the formation of the republic in the first place (waaaay back, in the 1950s?). The King at the time was trying to push through anti-corruption measures, so the landed elite overthrew him and established a republic so they (the corrupt landed elite) would be able to retain power. I have no idea if this is true or not, but a common theme in the thread was that corruption is so embedded into Brazilian politics that we in the West can't really compare it to anything from our history - not even the Gilded Age.

Not so surprisingly key opposition figures like Sen. Aloysio Nunes of the PSDB are heading to Washington today to report to their paymasters, meeting with leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, the US Ambassador to Brazil, and Madaline Albright's lobbying group. Nunes is the pointman for impeachment in the Senate and ran for VP on his party's ticket which lost the recent election to the PT and Rousseff.

Putin, don´t blame on US our own problems here. We have a population with a huge deficit on education and an even more huge gap on political education. Over 50% of the voters didn´t remember who they voted on the last election (I have a link but it´s in portuguese). Seing the voting on the Lower House just pointed how low is the level of our politicians (and I am not discussing the result, but the disgusting behaviour from both sides).

Looking the causes for all the scandals, we have a way to finance elections here that is completelly prone to corruption. THe bulk of the money used on campaigns came from big enterprises (mainly the ones that also work for the government or banks). Obviously this big generous entreprises expect something in return. There is a common say here: you need to give to get it back....
This happens on all levels (states, cities, legislative houses) and it´s so embedded into our political culture that I really don´t see a way to change.
Just to give an example, a female politician sunday voted yes on the impeachment for his husband (that is a major on his state) and for the end of corruption. Today he (the major) was arrested for corruption (benefiting a hospital that is owned by his family).

well, isn't it admirable that a politician allowed the impeachment of her own husband?

the corruptability of the 'democracy' is a problem common to many, especially latin but US must be included, countries.

This is the paradigm of 'democracy' that US has tried so hard to sell everywhere.

How much the lack of political culture can be attributed to the dictatorship, anyway?

I'm afraid that was a bit confusing. She is a deputy in the lower House and, among the reasons she cited to vote 'yes' for the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, she mentioned her husband, mayor of a small town, as an example of a good administration, in order to show how our problema in politics can be fixed. Then he, the example, was arrested the following day.

rdrivera,

I am not denying Brazil has corruption but I also cannot pretend like Washington doesn't have its finger in every pie in the Americas. The recent events in Honduras and Argentina are just two recent examples.