Country at a Crossroads: A Roundtable on Brazilian Politics

[MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome, everyone, to
our first public event of the semester of
the Brazil Initiative. My name is James Green. I’m the Director of
the Brazil Initiative and also Professor of
History and Portuguese and Brazilian studies. And what I’m going
to do tonight, before I introduce
our three panelists, is to give a quick
overview of the situation in Brazil, which is
impossible to do. It’s going to be
very superficial. It’s going to be
very rapidly done. But I’m assuming there are
people who come to this forum with different levels of
interest and curiosity about Brazil. But before I start,
I want to make sure that I thank Ramon
Stern, the Program Administrator of the
Brazil Initiative, who put this program
together and puts everything together for the
Brazil Initiative and without whom we would
not get anything done. So he deserves our applause. [APPLAUSE] Thank you, once again, Ramon. So in 2003, Luiz Inacio “Lula”
da Silva was elected president and was the first person
from the center-left to occupy the presidency in
Brazil, if you think about it, since Getulio Vargas in 1954,
when he commits suicide. Joao Gulart comes
to power in ’61 because the president resigned. So if you think back,
Lula is the first person with the center-left politics
who will come to power and will begin to
implement a program, which is a coalition between
the center and the left, which has as its basis a
democratic, social democratic vision for Brazil, believing
an alliance with capitalists and a third path foreign policy
and relying on both imports and exports, but foreign
banks for investments. And at that moment
when he comes to power, soon after coming to power,
there is high yields. There’s the China boom, which
will help commodity production and help the success
of his campaign. In his first term, there was
a scandal surrounding members of his party who were, because
the Workers Party did not have a majority in
Congress, they basically purchased votes and
alliances for people in order to guarantee a
congressional majority in Congress. This was discovered. People were sent to jail
for varied degrees of time for being involved in this
kickback vote buying event. And it’s important to point
out, this is not the first time that Brazilian politics
have done this. But this was really
the first time that this was discovered
and seriously criticized. And it caused there to be
a crisis within the Workers Party, which had
stood out as being unique and different from
the other political parties. But nevertheless, Lula was
re-elected for a second term. And in this time period,
from 2002 to 2010, we see an increase
in the minimum wage, a decrease in employment,
and a real growth in gross domestic product, which
is one of the explanations why Lula left office
with an optimism and the country was
seen as, finally Brazil, the country of the
future, was going to arrive at the future
with all the possibilities. So this was a period
of tremendous optimism, and Lula, I think, with
80% or 90% approval rate, the highest approval rate of
any president in the country. He handpicked his
successor, Dilma Rousseff, a former revolutionary, a
guerrilla fighter imprisoned, involved in several jobs
as a technical functionary and eventually, because
of the Mensalao scandal, becomes his chief of staff
and is handpicked by Lula to succeed him. She is elected for
her first term. And then in her second
term is impeached, as we’ll talk about [INAUDIBLE]. Her program is essentially
similar to that of Lula, with the caveat that
she really relies highly on another
political party, the PMDB, which emerged
in the opposition to the military regime,
was founded in 1965. But by the time it builds this
electoral alliance with the PT, it has lost its
ideological profile and is a party that
is more relying on guaranteeing its
ability to continue to be in power through
building local coalitions with interests, economic
and political interests at a local level,
and then building a coalition with the Workers
Party to rule the government. Her program is also
social democratic and, like Lula’s, is
focusing, to a certain extent, on redistribution of
certain wealth to the poor, a strong state in
development projects, pro-market fiscal policies,
and a different engagement in foreign policy, is
much less interested in really building alliances
with the global south. And she has, in her first
years of her presidency, tremendous popularity, as Lula
does when he leaves office. And this is compared to other
people who preceded her. And then in 2013, there are
a series of mobilizations. People are still
debating what the nature of these mobilizations
were in the country, what was the content,
what was the purpose. They start out as mobilizations
against the high cost of bus fares, an increase
of 20% in bus fares, but quickly spread and
develop multiple facets to their content, some people
protesting because the promises that the Workers Party had
given the country had not been fulfilled, others,
on immediate demands for improvement in education,
transportation, public health and the quality of life. And then it takes
on another tone by other people
actually questioning the political parties and
questioning the Workers Party and questioning Dilma’s
leadership as the president of the country. And while in the very beginning
of these mobilizations, they were organized by radical,
decentralized collectives of students, after they
take on a mass content, the media, especially
the most important media, shifts its opinion and starts
supporting these mobilizations, especially as part of
the people mobilizing are taking on an anti-PT stance. Nevertheless, in
the 2014 elections, Dilma Rousseff runs against
a center-right candidate– and I didn’t have a chance to
read the newspapers today– Aecio Neves, who just was
suspended a second time for corruption from the Senate. But he ran a very strong
campaign from the center-right, building an alliance with
other political parties. And Dilma won with a margin
of 3.5 million votes, or 3.3 points. But it must be noted, this
is the closest electoral race since Brazil returned
to democracy in 1985. And the first
election was in 1989. It’s important to understand
that the elections are two tiers. So many candidates run in
the first year, and then the two top voting, people
getting the top votes are run in the second runoff. And Dilma won. Now at the same time
that this is happening– I’m sorry there’s a
formatting problem– the federal government,
the federal judiciary is starting to investigate a
series of scandals connected to money laundering and passing
on money to political parties. This is called the Lava Jato,
or the Operation Car Wash. It initially is
connected to politicians in the Workers Party and
other political parties. But soon there’s the discovery
of the involvement of the state oil company and people
involved in state entities that are skimming off money and
putting it in their pockets or passing it on to political
parties to buy influence. This is led by a prosecutor
named Sergio Moro, who becomes the leader
of this operation and will every single
day be bringing charges against figures
and being involved in a process, which was
borrowed from the Italians, of plea bargaining,
basically getting a person to have a lesser sentence
if they themselves will give information about other people. So this is a way
that many more people are involved in the accusations
of corruption, money laundering or influence buying, as
more and more people are under the net of Lava
Jato and brought to jail, charged with crimes, and then
have those sentences reduced, or even given freedom, if
they will, in fact, give names of other people. And on one hand,
this is a way which allows the prosecutors to
get information about people who might not give it. It’s also an
opportunity for people to make up information in
order to avoid a long prison sentence. With a divided
Congress and a sector of the Congress being accused
of being involved in scandals and corruption, especially
the Speaker of the House, Eduardo Cunha, when it was
clear that the Workers Party was no longer going to support him
and support an investigation in his being involved
in corruption and having millions of
dollars in an offshore bank account in Switzerland,
he accepts the demands that have been articulated
by sectors of civil society for the impeachment
of Dilma Rousseff. And these are
demands that happen right after the
elections, challenges to the election results,
and then there’s mobilizations by
people who support the center-right coalition,
Aecio Neves, essentially, and will expand. The accusations are about
improper budgeting and budget accounting of funds that the
Congress has determined need to be handled in a certain way,
with the accusations that she circumvented these regulations
and therefore violated the will of Congress as
the basis for impeachment, known as pedaladas, or kind
of shifting the money around in the budget. At the same time,
Lula is detained under charges of
possible corruption and receiving bribes
or benefits for in turn favoring certain companies. And so the impeachment
will happen in the Chamber of Deputies in April. President Dilma Rousseff will
be asked not to step down from serving until the
Senate takes up the case and there’s a voting. The people supporting this, in
large part, but not entirely, are people of a core coalition
within the Congress known as Bala, Biblia e
Boi, which are people who are involved in law
and order ideas and the gun industry in Brazil. People who are involved are
linked to the Evangelical Christian movements,
and people involved in agro business who form a
core of the opposition to Dilma. In the Senate, she is
tried and impeached. And in the meantime. Michel Temer, the Vice
President and the representative of the PMDB, is the
temporary president. This is his First
Cabinet of Ministers, widely criticized for being
all white men of a certain age. And after the impeachment,
he will carry out a series of reforms, including
changing the social security system, reforming the
consolidated labor laws of 1943, which
encourages expanding independent contractors. And at the same time, there are
increasing charges against Lula leading to his being indicted
and convicted in the first [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
what is that– the first, in the First Court of Law,
for having received as a bribe an apartment in– beach apartment, and
other charges against him. And he is now appealing
that decision. And at this point, it seems– and this is one of
the many questions we have– that the core
center-right government, the political party
that is, the PSDB, that has challenged the Workers
Party in recent elections. And the political system has
been a balance between the two main core political
parties, on one hand, the center-right PSDB, and on
the other hand, the Workers Party as a leader of
another coalition. It seems– and this
is my prediction– that if there are elections
in 2018, someone from the PSD will likely be the
candidate elected. But I’m very bad at predictions. So you shouldn’t
pay attention to me. One of the other
candidates who has been an important
figure in the past is Marina Silva, who is part
of a small political party that was formed recently after
she left the Green Party. Another controversial
candidate is Jair Bolonsaro, who represents a very hard
right political movement, which is very problematic from
many points of view, but has significant
popularity in the population. And then even people are
talking about the possibility of someone like Sergio
Moro being a candidate for the president in 2018. Lula, if his appeal
is not successful, he will not be eligible to
run in the 2018 elections. And there’s a big question mark
about what his fate will be, as well. So Brazil is not in a good
place, at this point, I think. I think there’s a political
crisis, a crisis of confidence in the political
system and politicians, a strong sense by many people
that all politicians are corrupt, that the
situation in the country is very dismal indeed. So I don’t know if that
will be helpful to people. What we’ve done tonight is
in three people together to speak on the situation
Brazil from different angles, from different perspectives,
from different ideas. Each is going to be allowed
to speak only 20 minutes, and then we’re going to open
up for a debate, opportunity for people to ask
questions and answers. We’re predicting this is
going to last till 9:30. People should feel
free to leave quietly, if they need to leave
earlier than that. But that’s the
plan for the night. So I’d like to call
three people to the table and then I’ll introduce
them at the same time. So first, Abner Sotenos, please. [APPLAUSE] Then Claudio Beato. [APPLAUSE] And then– we’re doing a
Brazilian style tonight– and then Vira Paiva. [APPLAUSE] We didn’t sing the
national anthem. But we could have. [INAUDIBLE] So I want to introduce
all three of them now, because you’ll get a
sense of who our panel is. And then I’m going to
let them speak in order and I’m going to be
brutal about time. So if I can sit between
Claudio and Vira. So if you sit at the end,
so that I can control the time a little better. OK. So Abner holds a BA and
an MA degree in history from the Federal University
of Rio de Janeiro. And he’s done research on
the military dictatorship and worked with the State Truth
Commission of Rio de Janeiro. He has been a visiting
scholar at Brown last year and this year, and would
love to stay longer at Brown, if fate takes him
in that direction. He works on the
military dictatorship, popular social
movements in Brazil, the history of
[INAUDIBLE],, which is a working class and poor
neighborhood of the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. And I had an opportunity to
meet him four or five years ago at a defense of
another student in Rio and I was very impressed by
his enthusiasm and interest, and he came highly recommended. And so we wanted to include
him on the panel tonight. Claudio Beato is a professor
of sociology at the Federal University Minas
Gerais, where he is the Director of the Center
for Crime and Public Safety Studies. He has produced
dozens of articles– I think 36 articles– many books and book chapters. He has served as a visiting
fellow in many places, including the Wilson Center
in Washington, DC, the David Rockefeller Center at Harvard. And currently he is
the [INAUDIBLE] Chair of Brazilian’s Studies
at Columbia University. Vira Paiva is a
professor at University of Sao Paolo in Social
Psychology department. And she has been
a coordinator in the interdisciplinary
University of San Pablo Nucleus for the Study of
AIDS Prevention since 1981. And I must say, she was one
of the first psychologists to really deal with
people with HIV/AIDS. She’s also the daughter
of [? Juven ?] Paiva, a former Brazilian Congressman
who was arrested, tortured and disappeared by the
military dictatorship in 1971. And in this capacity, along with
her mother and her brothers, her brother and her sister
have been very, very involved as an intransigent fighter
for human rights and justice in Brazil, including
serving as the civil society representative to
Brazil’s National Council for Human Rights. And she is currently
a visiting professor at Brown through the Center for
Latin American and Caribbean Studies. So we’re going to start– they deserve another
round of applause. [APPLAUSE] So we’re going to start with
Abner, who will be speaking. And then we’re going to move
to Claudio and then to Vira. And maybe Ramon will help
Abner get his PowerPoint ready, if that’s possible. So good evening, everyone. It’s a great honor to share my
ideas, a few, on this subject. I want to thank Professor
James Green and especially [INAUDIBLE],, Antonio Taylor,
Flavia [? Suarez, ?] and Larry [? Britt ?] for assisting me
by reading these texts before my presentation. The title of my
presentation is, “First we get [INAUDIBLE] of Dilma, rid
of Dilma and the Work Party, Then Comes the Rest”. This was [INAUDIBLE]
the slogan that mobilize supporters of the
overthrown Dilma government. Later, it was
[INAUDIBLE] appropriate by critics of impeachment
when Temer government began to take away
social rights and pass laws to expand
deforestation of the Amazon, to use the public funds to buy
off the parliament in order to shield the president
for investigation into his own crime, eliminate
the representation of women and the black Brazilian high
level government position, reduce the federal budget in
the areas of health, education, science and technology, freezing
the investment in this area for the next 20 years. The process that culminated in
the impeachment of President Rousseff was well analyzed
by delegation sent to Brazil by the Latin American
Study Association, LASA, which resulted in a
report on the 100 page which I invite to access. My point of view, to consider
the impeachment as a legally defensible because it was
followed judicial formality. Legal ritual is
questionable at best. Rather, it involve all
legal maneuvering behind, with several political
actor play key roles, namely the Brazilian
parliament and the judicial [INAUDIBLE],, which was inflated
in importance by sectors of the mainstream
media in Brazil, which is controlled by a few
family, the financial sectors and substantive sectors
of the middle class that mobilized state
capital across the country. Therefore, out of this and in
a coup d’etat, [INAUDIBLE].. This kind of a coup
d’etat without immediate of use of military violence, as
previously practiced in Latin America, has been
mobilized in their region, in the case of Honduras in
2009 and Paraguay in 2012. In both country,
the establishment of a new presidential
coalition was followed by the repression
of popular social movement, including the assassination
of peasant and indigenous leader, the increased
militarisation of police force with the goal
of repressing those resistant to coup, appropriation
of lands and natural resource by foreign companies,
their adoption of the trade and the true liberal
policy, characterized by [INAUDIBLE] of
[INAUDIBLE] business and of public education, and
the greater overall instability of democracy institution. While these contexts
are different, they are useful segue
into the Brazil situation. Thus, I [INAUDIBLE] agreeing
is that the coalition that gained power in
May, 2016 in Brazil came bearing as state
projects the past. Let me explain. The discourse of
modernization or adjustment of Brazil to the model of
so-called modern economy was often mobilized
by different actor and lent itself to
different interests. This conservative thought
process and the policies adopt in this name, in
its name, almost always were followed by a divorce
between the interest of popular class and
the big business, or between capital and labor. Historically, it is
not difficult to map these conservative thoughts. It is [INAUDIBLE] by the idea
that the Brazilian people must make sacrifice for period
of economic turbulence to pass. The military dictatorship
used the metaphor that the cake had to grow
in order to be distribute. More recently, ex-president
[INAUDIBLE] commented on the document [INAUDIBLE]
Temer party, the PMDB entitled, entitled, entitled, A Bridge for
the Future, or in Portuguese, [SPEAKING IN PORTUGUESE],,
by stating, “give the circumstances
that [INAUDIBLE],, give the circumstance in Brazil
following the impeachment, what we have to do
is cross the river. This is a bridge. It may be a fragile,
not more than a plank. But it is that we have.” Progressive thought provide
another perspective, that modernisation is
only possible by reducing social inequality and
broadening the representation of popular class,
among other points. The policies of
Lula [INAUDIBLE],, Lula and the large
[INAUDIBLE] Workers Party, followed these progressive
moves through 2014 and was characterized,
among other things, by conciliatory laws between
capital and labor, [INAUDIBLE] by the idea that
everyone should win, popular class and the upper
middle class and capital. [INAUDIBLE] business
sectors are doing much more. Its appearance to be
a formula to appease both Greek and Trojans. We know that this did not work,
especially after 2014, but not exclusively then. In this case, before Brazil was
affected by economic crises, beginning 2013 the
dissatisfaction of number of social sector
of this policy model indicates that it
had been exhausted. This model, in fact, seems
to have exhausted, much more by go against
expectation and the interest of upper middle class and
the sector of the business community especially tied to
the Federation of Industry of the state of Sao
Paulo, [INAUDIBLE],, than actually go against the
interest of the popular class. Victorious in 2014 election and
the belief that she could count on some patience for the
electorate and her sympathizer supported by 54.5 million
voter, Dilma government sought to respond to the demand
of the financial capital. She sought refugee
in the very same laws of the conservative thought. To ask for the population
to sacrifice themselves for the sake of patience,
President Rousseff wished to appointed
Luis [INAUDIBLE],, financial COO of the largest
private Brazilian bank, as her finance minister. But turned her down and
so she choose [INAUDIBLE],, also a director
of the same bank, who had been part
of the [? Cardoz ?] and the Lula government
and the economic team. With the caveat that belt
tightening would cut any rights from the population
under their slogan, no free rides, the [INAUDIBLE]
the austerity began. Though the name of a new
minister and the austerity policy pleased the mass
mainstream press that had harshly criticized the
government and apparently had appeased the rest of
the conservative camp. The honeymoon did not last long. Therefore, the
question remains why, with this gesture towards
the conservative camp, Dilma’s government
undergo the impeachment? Here, I return to
the [INAUDIBLE] I hope to support here that
the conservative coalition that took power in May,
2016 in Brazil has a state project that
took that evasion that return of traditional
elite to run the state and to control the economy. Begin on August 31, 2006
with the definitive removal of ex-president and by
extension the Workers Party, the country was no
longer at a crossroad and went back at
least to the 1980s. It is not be chance to– it is not to be chanced that
in the rhetorical of those who supported the
overthrow of government and if in the
analysis of expert, that is an insistence on
the continuate function of institution, as if
we were at the impasse during the end of ’80s. While institutions
continue to function, there has been loss of
the kind of democracy that was unthinkable
six or seven years ago. This argument that institution
are working today [INAUDIBLE] to reveal Brazil
conservative camp view and the meaning of democracy. It also reinforce the idea that
a formal and institutionalized democracies is
enough, preferably with [INAUDIBLE]
leader [INAUDIBLE] class participation. The project that underpin the
policy of the new coalition, principally led by the political
Party, PMDB, PSD, Democrats and PSDB, is the document
I refer previously, “A Bridge to the
as minister of the Cardosa government in the area of the
pensions who wrote, quote, “this document, the
[SPEAKING PORTUGUESE],, was not written to win the
vote of the popular class. This is not the kind of
program you bring to election.” End quote. [INAUDIBLE] at least
reveal the arrogance of the traditional political
elite and its contempt for the ability
for the population to decide for itself
what it wants. It is as if the electorate
were incapable to understand the supposed good intention
of the new government, or even incapable of
decide their future, the same old conservative mind. To conclude, the current
situation we have in Brazil is similar to the situation
after [INAUDIBLE],, the pillaged and [INAUDIBLE] thinking
of Republic patrimony and their attacks on social
and political rights. These are the central
characteristics of the current context. I [INAUDIBLE] earth will follow. The economic crisis
and the insistence that Brazil has failed its state
has give the conservative camp the opportunity to
take away rights. They have done so through
buying off member of Parliament, extravagantly expanding
the judiciary, increasing the budget in area
that will soon be privatized, such as the Ministry of
the Mining and Energy and the counteracting the
impetus of the military to intervene by
restoring their pensions, unlike that they are doing
with the rest of the people affect by the reform of
Brazil retirement system. Additionally, the
anti-corruption rhetoric has fueled the politization
of the judiciary, which has become a strong partisan
and has chose its own heroes. Whether it is the
Japanese of the– or the hipster of the federal
police, the prosecutor downtown [INAUDIBLE],, the
judge Sergio Moro, or the president of Supreme
Federal Court Carmen Moussa, even though they are
presented as people if [INAUDIBLE] strong moral
and a vocation for elimination corruption. Simple search into
their background to reveal that
they are as involve in shady activities
as the people they accusing, arresting
and condemning. There is also a growth
in the conservative camp in Brazil today, a new
Brazil right, [INAUDIBLE],, that wants engage in sexist,
racist and antidemocratic discuss and private meeting,
but today, are not longer ashamed to do so in public. They coerce the
attendees at exhibition by claiming that
they are immoral. They keep watch over
teacher in the classroom. They lobby for
censorship of plays, musical performance,
and that they want to control the content
of processor teaching and the student
freedom of thoughts. I am a pessimist about the
next 8 or 10 years in Brazil, even though I wish I
could be more optimist. The 2018 election are
under threat, not only of not happening but to be
empty of any content. The scrapping of public
universities is well on its way and we will have declaration
of a member of Supreme Federal Court that affirm that those
institutions ought to be privatized, [INAUDIBLE] Supreme
Court judge [INAUDIBLE] has already said in the case
of the State University of [INAUDIBLE], [INAUDIBLE]. The recent declaration of Army
General [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] that upper command of
the military has a plan for an intervention was
reinforced by official communique of the
commanders in chief of Army, General Villas Boas, in which
he was not condemn for his declaration. Instead his statement
has raised the fear of military intervention
being called for a minority of the
conservative camp. I believe that political
system, that tax system and the social security
in Brazil require reform. The question is,
who will benefit from their reform in Brazil? And wonder what basis
or pretense will be done must be discussed. So [INAUDIBLE] they are
fashioned to [INAUDIBLE] is not mannerly, because the
Mensalao scandal or corruption in Petrobras. Because if it were
the case, they ought to protest against Pedro
Parente, the current president of Petrobras, who
has dismantled, turning out the company
to foreign capital. So to conclude, [INAUDIBLE]
also [INAUDIBLE] the question, the main question
nowadays in Brazil is because the
[? Piti ?] police has put in center different
group that in the past was abandoned by the
government in Brazil, a special black
people who had faced a really, a really massacre
in Brazil now [INAUDIBLE].. The massacre of youth in Brazil,
the black youth in Brazil, was put in the center
of the question in [? Piti ?] government. Also, the right human was put
in center of the discussion. I know, we know
that this question was resolved,
[INAUDIBLE],, but was put in the center
of the discussion. So I would like
thank for everybody. And let’s use our
time to talking about these other thought
that we could talk now. Thanks so much. [APPLAUSE] OK. Thank you. Good night. Thank you for the
invitation, James. It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s a nice city and
wonderful university. It’s a pleasure to be here
for my first time here. Well, I would like to talk a
little bit about another phase of our political crisis that
have to do with a subject that was end up hidden by the
agenda, the political agenda and economic agenda
nowadays in Brazil. This is a pity, because
this is an old problem and it’s becoming worse. I will talk about crime
and violence in Brazil. I will give you an
overview, some figures, what’s happening
exactly in terms of some explanation about our
institutional capacity, police reform, especially,
and should point out that things are changing. This is important, because
I’m optimist with things that are happening in
Brazil, in some sense. I think that we are
seeing some good signal that things are changing. Well, some figures. We have a lot of
people die in Brazil. 60,000 people die every year. Victim by homicide
is almost on plane, with 150 people
falled down every day. This is the equivalent
is huge numbers. And in terms of
fear, Brazil is one of the countries where
the people feel more fear to live there in this country. And just to have
some data to compare. Brazil is most violent in
death than Syria in war. There is more people dying
in Brazil than in Syria now. In the last five
years, or four years, we have more people, 200,000,
8,000 people dying there. Is this a war? Well, this is image is of the
last week in Rio de Janeiro. We can see the armies
in the streets. They are doing public
security, public safety. And this is the regular police
doing policing in Brazil. It’s not exactly the usual way
that police goes to the street. But in Rio de Janeiro,
some parts of the city, this is happening. These are the
numbers of homicides. It is increasing a
lot, never stop it. We have, since ’98, we
have about 1,500,000 people that die in Brazil. And we have this
increase happening just in some regions in
Brazil, that where the federal government
invest more, in the Northeast of the
region of the country. In the Northeast region,
the federal government has invested a lot
of money because of Lula, the infrastructure
and build a lot of things. And the usual victims
are always the same, are black people,
youth that are dying. And this never change,
black and male and youth. And firearms are one of the main
causes of these kind of death is happen in the country. Well, there are some different
crimes happening in Brazil. That is very important
to understand the fear that people feel when
they walk in the streets. And the big cities
in Brazil are very, the fear is becoming one of
the most important [INAUDIBLE] in these cities, no? And this is the reason. Because we have
a lot of assault. We have larceny, fraud,
car accident, robbery, robbery especially,
civil rights that robbing the downtown
areas of different cities of the country. And what’s happening? We can see on the intra
level, human level, especially human
characteristic of violence. This is important
to understand what has happened because violence
is not only [INAUDIBLE] and it doesn’t happen in
all social groups in Brazil. There is one thing
[INAUDIBLE] is that crime happens very concentrated. We can call these [INAUDIBLE]
distribution, or a zip law distribution of the crime. This, for example,
we have in my city is divided in
8,000 census tract. And only 26, say six
or eight census track, are responsible for 20% of
the violent crime in the city. This is distribution. And this is the map where
the violent crimes happens. We going to see that is
the same phenomena happens, for example, Rio de Janeiro
and other cities, Sao Paolo– I think that is [INAUDIBLE] of
all cities in the world, no? In Rio de Janeiro,
for example, we have an interesting
phenomena that is related about if
contagion effect that is happening in this
city, what does it mean? That it mean that neighbors
that are very violent, they are becoming,
they have a lot of neighbors that
are becoming violent. In neighborhoods
that are safe, they have other neighbors
that are safer. This is a kind of
effect of contagion. This is a technique now
that’s in the [INAUDIBLE] you use is the [INAUDIBLE]. And when they analyze what’s
happen inside the city, it’s interesting
because the effect of socioeconomic variable
was completely different. For example, this
is to say, this is using a technique of
geographic with regression, where we can see that the effect
of socioeconomic [INAUDIBLE] is different in different
parts of the city. To understand more
easily, we can say that unemployment
is different when this happens
in one of favela or when this happen in another
neighbors in this city. The affect are different. And this is important to
having more [INAUDIBLE] public [INAUDIBLE]. Another important aspect is
that we call the segregation, spatial segregation. This is a picture by Sao Paolo,
where when you cross a street, you enter into one of the
poorest area in the city and the other side is a
rich area in the city. This is very common
in our cities. Rio de Janeiro maybe have
some of the worst situation, this because we have
the [INAUDIBLE],, the favelas that is in the
middle of high middle class. Well, we have
another explanation about this is that economic
and political crisis. This is true. There is a fiscal crisis
and public security that is affecting the
capacity of our governments to make good management
of their resources. But this can explain,
for example, rising rates on property crimes. And what about employment? This is not so clear,
how unemployment can be affected the crime rates. The results shows that
is ambiguous situation. There is another aspect
that is interesting is about the effect of the
crisis, special economic crisis and the drug market. People doesn’t have
money to buy drugs. And this means that
some of the drug dealers are going to another kind of
crime is to make their money. For example, they are
robbing more in the streets and this is causing a lot
of disruption in our cities. There is, of course,
a problem that we have the lack of
political leadership, if we haven’t a
political leader now to try to solve this equation. This is a huge problem,
despite the fact that I think that we never had
this kind of political leaders in Brazil. In the last 30
years probably, this was no problem for
political [INAUDIBLE].. In Rio de Janeiro, it’s
interesting because for a while we had a decline in
the homicides when we see this period. And especially regarding
the question of some project that they did in some
favelas, special [INAUDIBLE],, was important project that
decline the crime rates. Rio de Janeiro
was the worst city in the world in terms of crime. But it’s really result,
not only [INAUDIBLE] but the investment
that the government did in the public security
sector was important. And the results are
this, we can see that a situation where the
personal crimes are declining but property crime
is increasing. And we can see
this in the graph. And this happens
in all the country. What does it mean? Property crimes
are crimes that are more prone to be affected by
the capacity of management of the public security sector. Well, in this situation we
have to be more creative, especially we need more
science to deal with this crime problem. This is one of the
things that you have. We have go beyond
witchcraft and healerism. It’s not simple. Now there is an idea that
engineers like that when you have, when you are
using strong force, if it is not working you
have to use more force. And this is idea that
they are doing in Brazil. We lost the capacity to
build some preventive project and we are losing
more strength, using the armies to do public safety. On the contrary, I
think that we need more evidence-based project. And this means
changing the usual way to patrol [INAUDIBLE]. I’m not talking like here
about the preventive project because this is another
conference that we can do in another time, but just
talking about the management of this sector in Brazil. This is one of the problems that
we have is the mismanagement. And you have to change it. Why? Because we have some dimensions
of social [INAUDIBLE] control that are important. One of them is institutional,
institutional mother, when we are talking about try
to solve the crime problem. Institutions mean the criminal
justice system, especially police, in the case of Brazil. I will show some
data about this. But also the criminal
justice, the judges, prosecutors, and the
prisons in Brazil. The prisons are
part of our problem, because we have a lot of crisis
in the prison system in Brazil. We have another aspect regarding
social dynamics, individuals and organizations. And to understand what happens
in terms of criminal structure or activities, we
have to understand the opportunities
where crimes happens, not only from the point
of view of individuals, and the social
disorganization that happens in some parts of the city. And this is an
important component to understand the crime. This, for example,
Rio de Janeiro again, a Pareto’s distribution
of violent crime. We can see that 50% of
the mapped occurrences, occurring less than 5% of the
area of the Rio de Janeiro. These are the area. And we can see some
[INAUDIBLE] that are important to understand. In each area of Rio de Janeiro,
the part north of the city, we have different
indicators that explain crime distribution. In other parts of Rio de Janeiro
have other different indicators explaining the
crime rates there. And another
important question is are our criminal
justice organizations able to fight this challenge? This is our big question
in Brazil in terms of [INAUDIBLE] security. It’s because in Brazil
we always believe that we need a one-shot
solution is try to solve this in one [INAUDIBLE]. The first thing that
you have to think is about reforming the police. This is the usual police that
goes in the favela in Brazil. They looks like armies
entering into enemy territory. And well, there is
recurrent shortcomings in police organization. For example, institutional
rigidity is a problem, because our
constitution will say that we have to have
two different police, the military police
and the civil police, and we have these
[INAUDIBLE] for our problems of our juridical isolation and
culture between the police. One is very military and another
is very juridical police. We have a low degree
of effectiveness. I will show some data
that is shocking, when we see the problem
of homicide that only 8% of the people go to jails
when they commit homicides. No, the impunity is not
only for the rich people but for poor people that
commit crimes like this. We have a problem with
institutional fragmentation and rivalry and police
difficult and civil control, because we have a
low accountability. No police is not,
not only police but in general, the
criminal justice system, they are not accountable for
all other people, prosecutors, [INAUDIBLE] and police. There is no civil oversight
mechanism for them. And this is, for example, just
to illustrate this problem. We have the homicides in
my city, Belo Horizonte, attempted and consummated
in Belo Horizonte. We have more than 21,000
homicides happen there. But only 20% [INAUDIBLE]
investigation. That means that
80% of the homicide we lost in this process
where the crime happens and the police begins
to investigate. What happens here? And denounces by prosecutors
is just 14%, or of the 6%, we were lost in this process. Finally, judges have a
decision about 1,700 case, and just 6% work on them. This is a shocking number. [INAUDIBLE] sick
in terms, when you think in terms of
property crime, the situation is even worst. What’s happened exactly here? Where the police fail and
to make a good investigation or to conduct this problem
through the other police. Well, there is a lot of things. We can discuss this. But there is some
positive signals. I think that we have
a good opportunity to change the
situation in Brazil. The first one is that
cities are beginning to enter into the problem
of the security problem. Like in countries
like Colombia, we have more mayors that are
concerned with the crime problems and they are trying
to put their [INAUDIBLE].. In Belo Horizonte,
for example, we have a municipal
that is [INAUDIBLE] three axes integration
municipal prevention project. This is, for example,
the room where the people manage the
crime problem in the city, or is evidence-based politics
to manage the crime problem. And we have a lot of
integrate operation with other organizations that
use crime mapping to identify the hot spots, and then
they plan the operation based on these findings. And the result is
very interesting. When you compare the
last year, the first six months of the last year with the
first six months of this year, we can see a decline
in all kinds of crime. This is important because it’s
the unique city in Brazil that is declining their crime rates. And the same happens
in about when you compare Belo Horizonte
with [INAUDIBLE] in general. And justice is changing. There is a lot of controversy
about [SPEAKING PORTUGUESE],, Lava Jato. But it’s important
to understand, no, I’m not going to
enter into the Lava Jato, I don’t want to discuss
this, but it’s important that this is important change
in terms of the future, the [INAUDIBLE] future
in Brazil, especially because Brazil in general is,
there is a civic, civil law culture, and then is changing
more and more to a common law system, like in
the United States. And this is one of the reasons. Because in Brazil,
the Brazilian justice very what some aspect calls
the loosely coupled system, or we have different logics
inside each organization. For example, judges. If you get the judges
that are in [INAUDIBLE],, they are more crime and
control juridical culture. If you get judges, for example,
from Brasilia and the Supreme Court, they are more
rule of law judges. And this is important different
that we are [INAUDIBLE],, the idea to work
with a task force, the important thing about
[SPEAKING PORTUGUESE] is that they are working together,
not one each another. They are not
fighting themselves, like in the case of the
usual way that justices work. And we have the plea bargain,
and that was as important, too, that they
introduce in Brazil. [INAUDIBLE] was that
introduced the plea bargain and was victim of that now,
because he was victim of [INAUDIBLE]. Well, some data. It’s impressive. Now you have a lot of criticism
about the way that they work, but we have the
current president was indicted for
passive corruption. We have two former
president, Lula, Dilma, that have been convicted
for passive corruption, one indicted, another convicted. We have several
former governors. We have chief of
staff of president. We have a lot of data
indicated that they are changing the way
of the justice working, is probably the
first time that we have rich people inside
jails like the [INAUDIBLE].. OK. And well, there
is some criticism. We can discuss this,
because this is a way. The important thing
is that I would like to point to that these
judges and prosecutors that are changing these were
training here in USA, especially in Stanford and Harvard, and
they changed their minds, using more common law strategies
to make criminal justice. This, with the idea that
the people in Brasilia are fed up with the
corruption, but fed up also with crime
problems explain a lot what’s happening in Brazil. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Hello? Hello. Hello, hello. It’s difficult to talk because
I’m quasi into the discussion already, after
listening to the two people who talked before me. And it’s also because I’m not a
scholar on [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] I’m not a political science. I’m a political activist. And I’m here as a scholar and
so I would jump immediately to the discussion. But I decided that I
would do exactly that. Openings, three things
for us to discuss. And if I get time
to the third one. The first one is
impeachment for what or what they are doing
with the impeachment. I totally agree with
the first speaker who said that it was not
about corruption, because most of the people who
are in power now are totally involved
in corruption, right? And it’s not about a
program that was elected. Michel Temer was the VC,
Vice President of Dilma, but he was not elected with
the program he’s provided. So I’m giving you some thoughts
about what they are doing. Impeachment for what? Second, I want to
talk about people with fear, that’s something
that you talked about, and people without fear. Literally, people
say [INAUDIBLE] who are in the streets
resisting the situation. And if I have time, I
would like to finalize discussing the media, social
media, and the path to, or the means to,
the debate to think about the future of the country. I’m very pessimistic right now. In fact, I’m depressed. I feel like I [INAUDIBLE]
with the younger generation in my country,
because my generation fought a lot
against dictatorship and for social justice. And we did commit
a lot of errors. And I should say
that I do not only speak on my own experiences
with dictatorship and fight [INAUDIBLE]
dictatorship, but I’m speaking from the
position of a person who fought to build a new
country, who fought to build the new constitution,
first put it in place, and to put into the Constitution
some things that my speciality could contribute. For example, I worked
a lot during the ’80s through the health reform to
be built into the constitution and the right to health. The mental health reform
and all sexuality, gender and racial things are assets
into our constitution. That is known as the
human rights constitution. I have, since the
Constitution was on, as a professional
contributed to AIDS politics of all governments,
since [INAUDIBLE],, in fact, since the
beginning of the AIDS. So I was trying– and a lot of people
in my generation was trying to build a
country with public policies based on human rights and
building the [INAUDIBLE].. [? SUUS ?] is the Systema
[SPEAKING PORTUGUESE].. Public Health Service. –which has been being built
since 1990, with its 27 years. And it covers 96%
of the country. And it’s impressive
the way we could do it in 27 years with a huge
country like we have. So I’ll give you some
scenes of my experiences in this last period that we
are talking about that can make our discussion productive. When I was participated at
the National Human Rights Commission and I was
elected as a representative of the civil society– it’s half governmental
and half civil society, as any national
commission should be– I saw the impeachment of Dilma. I was there through
the impeachment process and through the same, the first
months of Temer government. So I could provide for a big
and organize a big conference on human rights where
I was fighting Dilma because she was allying with
some religious fundamentalists sometimes and not going
to the end to human rights to transgender people in
that Congress, in particular. So I was fighting
for her staying as the president
against impeachment, but also debating with her
as a human rights activist. That’s what I want
to point it out. And then I saw the new
Ministry of Justice, which is Alexandre Moraes,
who is 55 years old, was a professor
at my university, with a lot of suspicion of many
of his academic career very troubled, bringing a
general and a colonel– is that English– to our
human rights meeting, the meetings of the
Human Rights Commission, to threaten us with a
presence of the general. There is no way any general
should sit in that council, in that meeting. And we had to have him at
the meeting for two days, like looking at us, just after
the impeachment was done. This was scene one of my
experiences with this process. We weren’t fearing anything. People in that commission
are very high level activists for human rights. But this was a very deep sign. And we had two people
in the commission. One was a lawyer from OAB,
which is the National Lawyers Association, who supported the
impeachment, who was horrified at that moment and change
his position at that meeting, just looking at
what was happening in the Ministry of Justice. This was scene one
of the experience I want to share with you. I will give you more scenes. I love scenes. That’s my unit of analysis
in my scholarship. Second thing is like
I myself, hearing a comment on YouTube about the
new budget, of the 2018 budget. When you see the
budget proposal, you understand the
priorities of a government. They already have talked about
what is going on in many areas. But let’s see what is going
to happen next year when the [INAUDIBLE] which is
the death law proposal that is, how to say that, it
was sent to the Congress to cut the budget, to freeze
the budget, the social budget, for 20 years. What is going to happen in 2018? First of all, this destructor
adjustment means that 97% of the money that goes
to [SPEAKING PORTUGUESE],, that would be the unified system
of social care and support– I can not translate
that in English– would be cut 97%. So we will have only 3%
of the traditional money, of the last year money, to do. Bolsa Familia, which is
the funding for families who doesn’t have food on
their plate to fund, which is the basic program of
this kind of unified system, so we are cutting
from 14 million people to [? 12,000 ?] million people
in the Bolsa Familia program, in a huge crisis, where you have
12% of the unemployment, when we should be putting people
into the Bolsa Familia program, not taking them out. We will have 3.5 million more
people in the hunger map. We were out of the hunger
map three years ago, four years ago. We will add 3 and 1/2
million people in there. The special programs related
to the [SPEAKING PORTUGUESE] are programs the old, for the
children, for the disabled, and for crack use and
drug addiction programs, and for disabled people. They all in this pack. So they will have only
3% of the traditional, of the last year
budget, which was cut a lot from the traditional one. If you think about
education, 40% of technical education, high
school technical education, is cut. The cut is 40% of the budget. Basic education, 42%. And 46% of the budget
of universities. I must say that I find that this
big investment on high school and university education, it
is a very important crisis management. Why? Because if young people
don’t have jobs –and they don’t, right, in this crisis– they have something
to do with their time. They are not [INAUDIBLE]
of drug trafficking, of violent business, of
any other kind of business. This was a very
successful policy, I think, throughout
Brazil to bring economy movement in small
cities around the country, in public universities,
and specially it’s a crisis manager for youth. If you think about
what has happened in Europe, with 25% of
unemployment in the youth and what has happened with
this youth that is there without nothing to do,
it’s a very important piece of crisis management
that was being done. So when you think about
science and technology, it’s 58% of the budget is cut. When you think about
security, to talk about violence, the things
you are talking, it’s 54%. When you look at
house, it’s 14%, which is immense, because
the system [INAUDIBLE] was underfunded. So I was shocked. What is going– do you think
people are going to be at home? What is going to happen
with these kinds of cuts for public investment and social
support and social things? And social policies, right? So this is a shocking
thing for me. And this is something that is
spreading out through WhatsApp. You know WhatsApp, this is the
main connection among popular, among poor people in Brazil. It’s a way of being– they don’t have
computers, Facebook. It’s not so strong as WhatsApp. So this is my piece on what
they are doing with this that I feel like a cup, a civil cup. We don’t have a military. Civil coup. Civil coup, yeah. Thank you. Cup, it’s a different word. [LAUGHTER] Too late in the night. But the coup, yeah. It’s a civil cup. Coup. Coup, right. It’s like [SPEAKING FRENCH]
And it’s never a coup, it’s a cup, a coup, right? And we need to think that
one little thing that was talked about
the other speakers that during [INAUDIBLE]
and Lula time, there was no general that spoke
about military intervention. But we had it 10 days ago. So Lula, even if
it’s Lula and Dilma were leftist and not loved for
the traditional conservative spirit in Brazil. And if something that
is happening here, Cold War discourses were
used during the whole process of impeachment, which is very– the whole process of trying
to destroy the leftist and the Social Democrats. In fact, I think that we’re
growing up with a lot of people being in fear of demonstrating
and being arrested. So two are the scenes, right? There was a guy that– no, I’m sorry, 18
young people were arrested in last year, huge
manifestation against Temer, which is much bigger
than any other that you saw during the
impeachment process. But you don’t see it on media. You don’t see the photos. Because the media
is totally sided with the impeachment
process, the big media, I mean the big televisions. You don’t see the photo. But I was there. I saw it. So I can tell by
my own experience. 18 young people were
arrested, because there was a military guy infiltrated
in their conversation in WhatsApp– this
was last year, 2016. They’re being judged
by being subversives, by being opposition, by
being terrorists with nothing in their backpack but masks for
the nurses, some kind of water to protect from– Tear gas. –tear gas. And they are being judged. They were tried. They were going to
be judged last week. I had two friends
who fought with me in the dictatorship
that commented, I was afraid of going there. People who confronted
dictatorship, two very close friends who said,
I was afraid of being there, I’m glad you, the other
friends, were there. But I was afraid of being
arrested, of being prosecuted, because, and then I go
to the people with fear, we people are beginning to
fear this kind of justice that is being done in Brazil. And I give you some more
examples, some other examples of some judges. The justice system
is not coherent. They are divided as the
Brazilian society is divided. There are a lot of good judges
that think about human rights. But we are having very difficult
experiences with judges. And my brother, who is a
writer and a journalist, wrote a piece in the last
Saturday [INAUDIBLE] San Paolo newspaper, who’s
called “Fear of Justice”. Why? Because in the last
15 days, we had the judge who allowed for
treating homosexuality. Trying to cure homosexuality. To treat and cure homosexuality,
which is totally no evidence based. On the contrary, we have
a lot of evidence showing, collected here, that
on the contrary, gay people who go
through those persons are worse than they were before. We have this data. And I mean, there is
like 20-something years, 20 years of of not doing that. I was in the Council of
Psychology for a long time. And this was a decision
from the psychiatry. And we then have the Psychiatry
Association, the Medical Association, the
Psychology Association, the gay moment on streets last
weekend against this judge. Another judge
prohibited one play that was about [INAUDIBLE],,
by Jesus, [INAUDIBLE],, the queen of the sky, which
was a trans person who was incarnating Jesus. It was forbidden by a judge. There was a censor of a queer
museum exhibition in Porto Alegre by a judge, also. And that goes along and
along and along and along. And then finally
last week, also, we had a very emblematic
prisoner which was [INAUDIBLE],, one poor
person, a homeless person that was the only person
arrested in 2013 movement, because he had something
that he was using to do cleaning in his backpack. He was in prison for many years. He was liberated by a judge
to go back to his house, to a home at [INAUDIBLE]
Prison, which is like, can you see, he was
a homeless person? He was freed from prison
because he was with TB. He was sick for a long time. The judge allowed him to be
treated in his residence, which is the street. So he went back to the
street to get better with TB. So this is the fear of growing. Many people are
fearing to demonstrate. But on the other side– and I’m ending with
that, because I wouldn’t have time for that– we have millions of people
demonstrated against them. We have 30,000
people last week only in the city of Sao Paolo
[INAUDIBLE] police, of people without fear. There is a social movement
called People Without Fear. I saw it on YouTube. I saw it in Midia Ninja. I saw the people. I know a lot about
manifestations and parades because I’ve been part of it. So I can count. I can count. There were 30 million– 30,000 people in
Paolista last Tuesday. Because they killed
one person who was homeless in [INAUDIBLE],,
how do you call that, Who was homeless. Homeless. In the homeless
movement, 2,000 people demonstrate in [INAUDIBLE]. And they killed from
inside a building. They shot and killed one person. So they demonstrated. There was nothing in the news. There was nothing in the news. You see it in Midia Ninja. You see a note in, for example,
nothing [INAUDIBLE] global, nothing in many
other newspapers. And this is part of the problem. So I stop here. [APPLAUSE] So I want to emphasize– people feel free to
leave if they need to– Brown Brazil Initiative
is very committed to many different
points of views and an open and democratic
dialogue and conversation. So we’re going to open up
for three or four people to say something,
to ask a question, and then we’ll let our
panelists answer that. And then we’ll do another round. We have half an
hour for the plan. So we have lots of time. So if anyone wants to ask a
question, make a brief comment, the floor is open. OK. So let’s have one,
and two, third person? Am I two? Yeah. OK. Identify yourself, maybe, what
concentration or something, so we know who you are. I’m [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a third year
student at Brown. I’m concentrating
in neuroscience. And I’m from Brazil. I have a question about the
presentation about crime. There was a graph in the
beginning of the presentation showing the number of murders. And I think it showed the
absolute number of murders, like the total
number of murders. Is that right? At the beginning, yes. Yeah. That graph gave
me the impression that the number of murders is
increasing, like exponentially. No, no. But it was just– Sorry. This first is a rate. Oh, those are rates. I see. We have 11. In the [INAUDIBLE]
almost [INAUDIBLE].. Because I had the impression
that it was absolute numbers and I was wondering
if that could be a reflect of the
increase the number of the Brazilian population? Yeah. No, no, no. The rate’s per 100,000. And also, I think there was
another, in another slide, there was a comment of the index
of [INAUDIBLE] in the Northeast increased a lot. I was wondering if that could
be a reflect of the increase of investment there, because
the population in that area was neglected by all of the
governments previous to Workers Party government
because there was more investment in the
region, the population became more visible, so crimes
that wouldn’t be counted started being counted. The population there wasn’t
[INAUDIBLE] more visible, and because of that [INAUDIBLE]
that the index of criminality [INAUDIBLE] so much while
it actually wouldn’t have increased so much. I was just wondering
if that could be the case, if the fact that
the investments could actually have improved people’s
lives and there wouldn’t be a correlation between
the increasing criminality and the place receiving
more investment. And also, nothing was
commented on their presentation about education
being a solution. I think a lot was said about
the military and the police. But yeah, my mother
is a public school, is a teacher in public
schools in Brazil. And I think she has observed
how the population is suffering a lot with the decreasing
investment in education in the past few years. And Professor
[INAUDIBLE] information that people that have free
time, they are going to get involved in crime because
that’s what is around them. She has had students who
were forced into prostitution by their parents,
who were seriously abused, who were forced to
sell drugs by their parents. And having a stronger
educational support vocational system could possibly
be the solution to that. Please. Yes. I’m [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a professor here at Brown
in Portuguese and [INAUDIBLE] Studies and
Comparative Literature. Just a couple of
questions for [INAUDIBLE].. Let me preface my
question and my remarks by saying that I
never voted for Temer. My conscience is
perfectly at peace. I never voted for Temer for
anything, for [INAUDIBLE],, for Vice President,
for President. So I’m not
responsible for Temer. And the people who
voted for him should be responsible for
what he’s been doing. I certainly don’t approve a
lot of the cuts that are being made in the current budget. But I’m wondering
whether you would be prepared to acknowledge the
role of the Dilma government in creating the economic
mess and the budgetary crisis that we’re currently
facing in Brazil. Now, she inherited from
Lula a tremendous surplus that had been actually
going on for several years and converted that surplus
into a huge deficit. So at what point do we blame the
Temer government without also blaming the Dilma government? The cuts to education began
by the Dilma government, the cuts to the universities
began under Dilma, when [INAUDIBLE]
was the Minister of– what was he Minister of? So this is my first question. The second one is,
very, very briefly, I think we should be
wary of generalizing. There are many conservative
judges in Brazil. And we certainly
don’t agree with them. But there are also
many judges that do not agree with that conservatism. For example, the [INAUDIBLE] in
Porto Alegre that was censored, I believe by a judge, is
going to be actually shown in [INAUDIBLE] within
the next few months. So I’m a little bit– I don’t share your fear, and
I’m a little bit surprised that someone like you who
fought against a dictatorship would operate from
a point of you fear. Because fear is
extremely paralyzing. And we should not
fear to protest. We should not be
afraid to protest. We should not fear
any consequences. And even if there are
problems in Brazil right now, I think the country is whether
people, everybody would be willing to agree or not,
it is a functioning democracy, to a large extent. And I’ll stop here. More questions before
Abner and [? Mateos. ?] And then we’ll let
the panel answer them, if someone wants to. So my name is Abner,
and I’m here [INAUDIBLE] a new part of the Portuguese
and Brazilian Studies department and in the PhD program. So I have, I’d
like to share first an impression, and an
opinion, and then maybe a couple of questions. One of them is really, I’m under
the impression that sometimes– and this comes from
talking to people my age, between 25 and 35 years of age– I feel that sometimes
people of my generation feel stumped and paralyzed by
what’s happening right now. And maybe to make a contrast
with the American reality, not the current
administration, because I think it’s a different thing,
but the American history of backlash. I think my generation
right now is not used to the reality of
backlash, in which we have some type of advancement
when it comes to social policies,
economic policies. And at the same
time, right after you have a political movement
as a response to that, maybe a conservative movement. And I feel that here
in the US, because the democratic institutions
have been maybe stronger for a
little bit longer, people are more used to having
different voices in politics, just switching places. And sometimes you have
a Democrat and sometimes Republicans. And I feel that
part of the comment that my colleague
over there made in the first comment,
maybe education could help, in that sense. Because I feel that
most of my friends, they are paralyzed and
pessimistic because they– I feel that it may– part of the reason
might be some kind of historical, the lack
of historical overview, that that’s how democracy works. Sometimes you have a
government acting just the way you want them to act. And then after four
years, you have somebody who’s trying
to dismantle everything that you believe in. But it’s messy. It’s hard. It’s painful, but democracy
is supposed to be like that. So I wonder if you would
take into consideration that aspect of
what democracy is, and what role democracy,
actually, I’m sorry, education would play into
helping people process those changes and process
the backlash as a thing, as something that really
exists and should exist, I think backlash should exist. Because when there’s someone
on the right in the government that we disagree
with them, for them, it’s backlash, when we resist. So same thing with us. Second thing. I appreciate the analysis
on the amount of money spent on the breakdown or
the crackdown on crime. But at the same time,
I wonder whether that is kind of clinging
to a narrative that Brazil, in a sense, has
been the victim of, of being a reactive kind of government. For me the crackdown on
crime sometimes reflects a reactionary way of
dealing with the problem. And although there
should be money there and there should be studies,
there should be research, there should be people
thinking about how to improve the criminal justice
system and the penitentiaries and the jail system. Also, how about also having
as a kind of priority what comes before the crime? What comes in the formation
of people, in education? And unfortunately,
I know what you mean when you say
that when it comes to the budget, the government
in general, local government, and like in a state
level or national level, they are not investing as much,
or us as much as they should, still it is always in the
campaign, the backlash, or I’m sorry, the
crack down on crime is always a campaign subject. People vote on that. So it’s not forgotten. Here. In Brazil. In Brazil. When you have a
candidate and they promise to bring
peace and security, people vote on that, right? So I think there is
a disconnect here between the political
discourse and the will of the nation and the way
that things end up happening. So how does that play out? And is there a solution? How does that work? Because it’s not in the budget,
but it’s in the discourse. Why does that happen and
what can be done about it? [? Mateos, ?] and then we’ll
let the panelists comment. [? Mateos. ?] How about a more
specific question for [INAUDIBLE] and then
a bigger one for all three panelists, whoever wants
to share their thought. The first one is that
as an engineer myself, and I like to just disagree
with the thing of the putting more force will
improve it, because– you disagree on that? Yeah, I disagree. This is just an example. OK. I understand the wrong things. [INAUDIBLE] But the thing is that I can
see that a lot of the problems that we have, budgetary
problems, even management problems, like they
come from the processes that we have instituted,
not formally, most of the times, not formally,
been to a bunch of places that they have these very little
habits developed along the way that they call it processes
that have never been formalized. So I wonder if you could
identify, just because you identified one regarding
the criminology, fighting criminology, if there
are other processes that you believe that should be taken
care of, how we optimize that, specific, like specific
guidelines, like a focus area that you would say that it would
be the most immediate right now to focus on. And the other question
for everyone to think is what can we do about it,
from this perspective, myself and other people like me, I
guess, people my age, at least, my generation, what can we do? What can we– what
do you think we should do to engage
in a better country, to make a better country? And that can be to
any perspective, I just wanted some
directions, I guess. So I’ll let any of
the panelists answer any of the questions
they wish to answer. Can I? Sure. Just two things. Did you hear me saying that
it was somebody else fault? No. I was thinking–
[? coupe, ?] youth. I was not thinking
about who begin it. I’m thinking about the
future of the country. I’m not an economist. That’s why I begin telling
you that I’m social, I’m a social psychologist
in public health. So I’m positioned in
the place of somebody who is doing public policy. But you alluded only
to the recent period. Yeah. That’s, we are
talking about Brazil. What is going to
happen in Brazil? The current period in
Brazil began yesterday? No. But we have to take– I think this doesn’t– sorry, I think this kind of– I’m not an economist
and I think this is not an economical problem. I’m thinking about
the future of Brazil. Yeah, I think what is going– –happen if there’s
an economic problem? No, I presented as a budget. No, I– –that there’s an
economic problem. OK, we want to let
the speaker answer. Yeah. Yeah. –and then encourage
vigorous debate. I was just saying that– –put words into my
mouth, because that– Yes. Yes. I know. You know, so I’m sorry
if I hear you badly. But I think, what I’m
saying is that I’m not discussing the past. I’m discussing the future. I’m very worried what
is going to happen with this kind of budget. That’s my thing, right? I was never part
of any government. I began saying that. I was very critical
of all of [INAUDIBLE].. And I was part of
the public policy production in many governments. I begin saying that, trying
not to polarize the discussion. So I’m not an economist. I’m just worried what
is going to happen with the country with
this kind of cutting. That’s my thing. I’m looking further. I’m trying to think what is
going to happen to the country and the poor people who
depend on this kind of the– so it’s done. The past is done. I’m wondering what we
do about the future. And the last thing I would
do was to fear myself. I’m a resilient person trying
to fight with a lot of courage. What I’m trying
to describe you is that there is two
kinds of people that I meet in Brazil in the
favelas, in middle class, in the university,
in social movements. Some of them could be identified
as we call, as I called, people without fear. They don’t fear to be arrested. They don’t fear to be killed,
because they were last week. They don’t fear to have
bumps in their face. They don’t fear to lose an
eye, as two people already did it in the last
movements, because we didn’t do the transitional justice
that we should have done in 30 years, as he said,
nobody touched in this case, in this thing. And transitional justice
allowed the torture to continue, military police to continue,
and this kind of security. So what I’m saying
is that some people are backing from the resistance
because they’re afraid. They are looking at peers being
affected, deeply affected. Teachers and students who
demonstrated against– in high school movement– I don’t know if you
saw that last year– are being visited by
policemen in their houses. I saw that in the
favelas I work, in the schools I
work around the city. Policemen are going
into the favelas and taking the mothers, say,
if your kid continue to be in this tribe, I will kill him. Or another mother who was
denouncing the massacre of [INAUDIBLE] was
followed by a policeman. I saw all of this
in the National Commission of Human Rights. I saw it directly. Another mother who lost her kid
in the massacre of [INAUDIBLE] was followed for a policeman
and said, if you keep resisting, I will kill the other kid. So this is what I mean. There’s two things. There is fear from one side. And there’s people
without fearing the other side, that
understand and try to think how democracy works. And you are totally right. I am trying to answer you. It is about democracy. But the thing is
that democracy is not equal for everybody
in Brazil right now. That’s my feeling. I’m sorry. It’s not. OK, if you are leftist,
if you are fighting for some kind of
social justice, you have less democracy, less fair
judgment than if you’re not. This is clear. People are fearing that. That’s why I’m telling you. And this is real. I have many, many,
many, many situations. And what strikes me more, it’s
why liberal people are not saying anything about that. Because they are
focused on economy. They just want to think
about structural adjustment. They just think about who did
the bad thing in the economy. And we are going into
a very dangerous piece that very fragile
moment of our democracy. And liberal people doesn’t
say a word about that. They should be protesting
against this kind of things. And they are not. And this is part of
disappearance of democracy. You’re totally right. And I think part of my
depression I began to speak about, my depression, is that
maybe we thought people who fought to take dictatorship and
are still there doing that– and I’m doing that,
I don’t fear that– people without
fear thought maybe that it would be
stabilized, would be done. And I have a good professor
at sociology department in [INAUDIBLE] who has a
thesis that is beautiful, and he always says,
democracy is viewed by and through every
single generation. It’s not done. It’s never done. You can have a country like
this that you have a better institutional strength. But in Brazil,
it’s very fragile. So you’re totally right
about how democracy works. It is like this. OK. I would like to begin with
a question what we can do. Because let me explain,
what I do in my university, I’m the director of a center
that in public policy, in security is
different, is not only academic study of the reasons
and the causes of crime, but in public policy are. This means to search
for solutions. I can talk a little
bit more about this. But we have a lot
of solution on this. Because you are right,
and you also, in the term, in the sense that well,
the huge generation are becoming despaired
with this situation. There is nothing that we can do. And I think that there
is a lot of things that we can do,
especially in security. Security is important
because it’s the less developed field
in public administration in Brazil. There is no other field
that advanced less than the public security. Education advance a
lot, health advance. We have the [INAUDIBLE]. We have more education,
not so good as we need, but there is a lot of advances. And security, no, to have it. And in my [INAUDIBLE],,
I always say, it’s easy to accuse
the police officer, for example, because they
are killing extra officially, because there is a
lot of criminals. But the difficult thing is what
can I do to change the police? I think this is the important
thing that we can do in Brazil. We have to search for a
solution for our huge problems that we have, not
only in security, but I think in defending
human rights and citizenship for different groups. But is not accusing. We have to take in account
just the public pulse, the idea to study and how
to arrive in solution. Well, on this I
would like to point about the role of education. Education is very important. One of the project that we
made there in Belo Horizonte and then it’s become a Latin
American reference that called [INAUDIBLE]. And one of the
things that we did is just to talk with
youth people in favelas. One of the thing that
impressed me more is how they do nothing in the
favelas, the youth people. When they go to
Mondays and afternoon, they are drink
beer, nothing to do. And the project
on the first stage was just putting them to
study, to have some activities, to have some kind of
training, different fields or sports or something like
this, in some specific favela. Because one of the
problem that we have in Brazil that when
they try to find out some solution for crime,
we have [INAUDIBLE] oh, this is not possible. We have to choose. And then you have to have
good information where the things happens,
and then we can develop some specific project. This is the importance to
study the crime problem, you have to study
education problem. And I think that. Well, when you have
more information, good evidence in
what to do, I think that you can go out from the
reactive response to the crime problem. This is the problem that we
have in Brazil, that police organization, for example,
but not police organization, justice, also, they are
always making a reaction about a thing that
just happened. No, they to anticipate
on the problem, on the case of the police,
and use a lot of evidence. I made the reference
here to the Lava Jato, because there is
some important aspect of Lava Jato is really
innovating a lot in terms of just in Brazil. First of all, they
use a lot of evidence. The amount of paper and
proof and evidence and track the banking accounts
in the world is huge. They develop a specific software
just to track the transaction. And this change
completely, for example, for the defense
lawyers in Brazil. Because when they goes to
discuss with Sergio Mora, for example, they have mountains
of evidence against him. And this is difficult.
This is changing how the law works in Brazil. Why? Because in the
civil law tradition, the laws work in
terms of rhetorical, depends of Latin,
lawyers talking Latin, lawyers
talking in rhetoric, but not proof and
evidence [INAUDIBLE].. This is the good part of this. There is some bad parts
that they are, of course, we can discuss this. But this is important, the
police, the federal police is working completely
different way. And that is the
same that we have to do in terms of the police. Well, finally, I would like
to mention about the idea that Northeast was
increased their crime rates. It’s because it’s interesting. Because Northeast, it’s becoming
better under the government. And one thing that
we never think about is that development
have ugly faces, also. Development is not
only good things. Develops brings together
the deterioration of cities, the unequality,
special unequality. This is the reason
because good governments have to intervene trying
to minimize the bad effects that development have some. And this never
happens in Brazil. In fact, we have in
the last 30 years governments, left governments
that they never stopped to think about security. This is our problem. They never stopped. For example, the bad
things that could happen when you improve the
conditions of some people there and these worse the
situation of security. And I think, I have a theory
is a common sense theory, is that because a lot of
them are Marxian thinkers. They think that is solve the
economic problems the rest will be happens naturally. Is not true. Because when we solve
economic problems, we will create another
economic problems. We will create a
modern inequality and you have to be
prepared to fight this bad effects, this
perverse effect that develop and have some time. And this is happens
in Northeast. Northeast, for example, is the
case of very bad mismanagement in terms of public security. Because they have one of the
worst police organizations and one of the worst governors
to manage this problem. And this is another
thing, the last 30 years we have a problem, a
recurring problem that is police organization. When you heard in the elections
about police reform in Brazil, never, never. No one wants to talk
about police reform because police are
a huge organization. They can unstabilize government. And they don’t like
to speak about this. But this is part of central to
our citizenship now in Brazil is how to democratize
the police organizations. And this is the reasons I think
that the left is government and we are, look,
I’m more optimistic, because I believe that
our institutions are working despite of all
things that are happening. And we are lucky that
our rights think, we have the right thinkers. We have some crazy people like
[INAUDIBLE] or some general that sometimes say
some crazy things. And is not being
punished for doing that. [INAUDIBLE] was not [INAUDIBLE],,
yeah, you are right. Well, I don’t believe in
which, but [INAUDIBLE] [SPEAKING PORTUGUESE]. But the idea is that
in the next election, I think that institution will
be working, despite of all is happening, and
probably the parties that will be at the end of the
electoral are the traditional. Because Brazil is a
conservative society. The traditional parties
will continue to work. And this is important. But we can talk more about this. So Abner is our last
speaker tonight, because we’re against
our evening end, so– OK. I have a lot of things to
talk, but I don’t have time. So I will select two points. So first of all– OK, first of all,
institutions were not built. Rather we thought
that institutions are work well or work in Brazil. And my point of view, it’s
misconception of defense of democracy in Brazil. So when you consider that
structural racism in Brazil that attacked the majority
of the population in Brazil, you have to think
about democracy in the sense of democracy. So when you think about
education, example, the last years,
decades, Brazil increase a lot the quality and the
quantity of established or school university. But when you [INAUDIBLE],, people
who receive this education, we have a problem, or when
do you think about violence, because that I think the
police have to be charged because they is
responsible, because police is part of the state,
not a separate group. No group aside of government. So we have to charge the police. Because when you consider
security and education in Brazil and you try do
policy to result or to solve the problem,
normally, especially in conservative group, in
conservative government, they don’t consider the
difference between, example, race in Brazil. So when they consider,
especially in conservative mind, I think because this,
because that [? Piti ?] Party was deposed in the
government in 2016 . Because I think
it’s the [? Piti ?] don’t solve this
problem, but put on the table to talking
about it in different way. Despite the fact
that during, in 2006, the new law at that
point is the use of drug put more than 104 million
people in the prison, despite the fact that the
map of violence in Brazil have a interesting situation. The same time that crime
against right people decreased 20%, against
black people arise 20%. So how? I can’t understand
how I can affirm that institution is work well. Even now [INAUDIBLE] now. So when do you think about
education or security system, you have to put it in the table. Because we have a different
Brazil everybody knows. Go to the institution. Go to university. It’s in Brazil. Think about the
[INAUDIBLE] when do you consider the aspect
of race, the people who receive this police. Policy. Policy. So we have a– when do you think about
Brazilian situation, it’s impossible. But we don’t have consider in
the superficial way the problem that black people in
Brazil have faced. Because it’s look like a mask. So in my point of view, the
institution in Brazil now they don’t work,
or don’t work how you need that we have to work. In my point of view, when do
you think education in Brazil, we have a different asset
in education in Brazil. Consider the aspect of
race and gender, too. So I don’t have more
time to do, to speak. But the sense of democracy
now days in Brazil, despite the fact
that Temer was voted but he doesn’t vote with
the [SPEAKING PORTUGUESE].. He doesn’t vote with
[SPEAKING PORTUGUESE].. The problem create
by PSDB, PMDB, or the apart of [INAUDIBLE],,
a part of Democrats, the party that is
against, example, police– Policy. No. Affirmative acts in Brazil. Nowadays, the minister
of education in Brazil is a politic– Politician. Politician, who is
against the sense of democracy in education. The Democrat go to the
justice against police affirmative action in Brazil. And now this conservative
coalition lead by Temer passed the bill,
passed [INAUDIBLE],, choose [? Mendosa ?] [INAUDIBLE]
to be ours education minister. It’s a problem. How I can affirm this
institution are [INAUDIBLE] very well. Thank you. So I want to thank
our panelists. [APPLAUSE] I want to thank Ramon
[INAUDIBLE] for helping organize this event. And thank you all for coming. This is the first of a
series of activities. If you want to get a sheet for
Brazil Initiative activities, or if you want to get
on to our sign-up sheet, just send an email
to [email protected] We look forward to seeing
you all at our luncheon time debates and lectures
this semester and for other
activities this year. Thank you very much. Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *