Skip to main content

The Real Corruption in Brazil

Global capital despised Brazil's Lula and feared his return to power. In particular, the rich resented his nationalization of Brazil’s oil resources, making Petrobras the patrimony of all Brazilians. He strengthen the national bank and funded oil exploration that identified enormous oil reserves in the Atlantic off the country’ coast. Equally threatening were his efforts to establish a network of third world governments, especially in the Americas.

Very few Brazilians were surprised when Judge Sergio Moro sentenced former president Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva to 9 ½ years in prison for corruption.  The first worker elected president of Brazil, Lula, as he is known, served from 2003 to 2011. Lula was instrumental in building the forces that overthrew the Military dictatorship and then the neo-liberal government of the country. He was president of the Metalworkers’ Union, and before that president of his auto worker local. He was a founder of the Workers’ Party and its leader. Lula was preparing to run again for president in 2018.

As Brazil’s president he eliminated 40% of the miserable poverty that engulfed his nation. He declared Brazil’s policies toward African descendants and indigenous peoples genocidal and had given both the right to self-determination and autonomy in their historically occupied lands. Access to health care, training and education, land and housing were guaranteed. Under the Workers’ Party leadership, the minimum wage was raised, domestic workers were given legal status as workers, which meant eligibility for minimum wage and pension benefits.

Global capital despised Lula and feared his return to power. In particular,  the rich resented his nationalization of Brazil’s oil resources, making Petrobras the patrimony of all Brazilians. He strengthened the national bank and funded oil exploration that identified enormous oil reserves in the Atlantic off the country’ coast. Equally threatening, or perhaps more so, were his efforts to establish a network of third world governments, especially in the Americas, independent of the US, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the polls there was no one who came close in popularity to Lula. Even Obama called him the most popular politician in the world.

So what did Lula do to merit a prison sentence? Based on the material evidence in this case, NOTHING! There was not a shred of direct evidence. The charge had been that he allowed a construction company to renovate an apartment for him to the tune of $1.2 million in exchange for a Petrobras contract. However, although he looked at this apartment, he never signed a lease nor had any intention of doing so. There is no contract. The only evidence in this case were plea bargains in the corruption cases of right-wing politicians. Hear-say from his enemies trying to get out of their own corruption charges, for which there were mountains of evidence, provided the total case against Lula.

So who is this judge that sentenced him to prison? His name is Sergio Moro, whose family has a long-established link to one of Brazil’s right-wing parties. In addition, it just so happens that Moro studied in a special program at Harvard University and then went through a State Department program that allowed him to consult with U.S. agencies that look at money laundering and corruption. Fortune magazine identified Moro as the 13th most influential political figure in the world. What a recommendation! His investigations into corruption, moreover, have centered on Worker Party members and leaders. Not a single member of his own party has been investigated.

The Workers’ Party president who followed Lula, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached by corrupt Congress members for misuse of a line item in the budget. These politicians, now under indictment themselves, could not find corruption, so they manufactured a new rationale for removing her from office. Dilma, by the way, had been in the trenches against the military dictatorship as a guerilla fighter, prior to completing an economics degree and becoming president.

Another interesting twist in this case is what happened the day before the announcement of Lula’s pending imprisonment. President Temer, perhaps one of the most unpopular presidents in Brazil’s history, signed into law a labor reform that gave corporations the right to bargain with individual workers and bypass unions entirely. The media, of course, buried the news of the union-busting decree.

Lula is not barred yet from running in 2018. His lawyers have appealed the case to a court in southern Brazil. If they exonerate him, the case is over. If they confirm the conviction before August 18th, his lawyers will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and he will still be eligible to run.

If you like this article, please sign up for Snapshot, Portside's daily summary.

(One summary e-mail a day, you can change anytime, and Portside is always free.)

Who besides Lula is in the race for president? There are two current candidates. One is a woman, Marina da Silva, once a member of the Workers’ Party but now an evangelical conservative who fashions herself as an environmentalist. The other is Jair Bolsonaro, a former Army captain, a member of congress who dedicated his impeachment vote against Dilma to the military leaders who tortured her. He is also known as the “Trump” of Brazil, a homophobic, racist, sexist millionaire who campaigns through social media. It is also possible with US backing that the judge in this case, Moro, may be called on to run.

Since Dilma’s impeachment, austerity measures have cancelled out almost all the social programs fought for and developed under the Workers’ Party. Many of the innovative steps to establish democratic decision-making in Brazil, such as participatory budgeting, have stalled.

Three & half consecutive 4-year terms of Workers’ Party presidents did not lead to the consolidation of the left and progressive forces in Brazil. In fact, the opposite. The Unified Confederation of Labor (CUT) has splintered considerably, leaving 7-8 separate federations. The success of the PT also attracted many centrist forces to enter the party and take advantage of its popularity. At the same time, and perhaps as a result, others defected or other parties left the PT coalition.

Now the progressive forces face daunting obstacles, as they have in Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and other nations in South and Central America. If Lula ends up eligible to run and wins, he will not be in the position he was in in 2002. One after another country in Latin America has been captured by neo-liberal conservatives:  coups without the military. Venezuela is about to join them. Lula will not have allies in the hemisphere apart from Cuba and maybe Ecuador. The US stands behind these new reactionary governments as it has historically, providing increased military aid, support for oppositional candidates, threatened economic sanctions and boycotts, and media misinformation.

One thing we should not forget, however, is that the people of Brazil have tasted greater equity, new forms of justice and participatory decision-making. These achievements have left a lasting impact and also transformed consciousness among many poor, working-class, indigenous, rural and African descendant peoples. Hopefully not only Brazilians but progressives and leftists throughout the world will draw lessons from these important advances and will be able to continue building the forces to take back their countries.

Ruth Needleman, Professor Emerita, IU