a common man's observations on Empire which are always works in progress
Monday, May 16, 2016
Normalcy of Color Revolutions
What made the names of nations U.S.S.R., P.R.C., and G.D.R, such stupid signifiers was their including progressive terms like "democratic," "people's," and "republic." Those nations' histories show examples of using progressive names to mask tragic realities. But these realities were easily revealed. So why use such terms that invite parody? We should ask this same question about nations today calling themselves "democracies." The efforts undertaken in the last few years to overturn election results shows the fragility of democratic institutions. What History's supposed ending in 1989 decided for humanity was which empire could rig or circumvent democratic mandates deemed harmful to oligarchs.
The latest victim of democratic annulment is Brazil's current and beleaguered President Dilma Rousseff. Why did Brazil's lower house of its Senate impeach recently her last April? If the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Hillary, her hired surrogates and cult followers would base some of their defense on the convenient rhetoric that she is being persecuted only because she is a woman. Regardless of the claims and supporting facts her detractors present, her defenders and enablers would dismiss it as smokescreens providing cover to execute a sexist coup. Are Rousseff's accusers in the Brazilian House motivated by sexism? Maybe. Their formal accusations seem irrelevant to their motivations when you read and listen to their comments made during the House vote on impeachment. If you only listen to some of the comments made by Senators during their voting to impeach Rousseff, you will hear little more than poorly veiled political posturing.
Telesur summarizes five of the main reasons the Brazilian Senators stated impeachment was necessary:
1. Dictatorship Nostalgia
Jair Bolsonaro dedicated his vote to the Brazilian dictatorship-era torturer Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, head of the repressive intelligence agency during the time Rousseff was tortured by the dictatorial regime.
2. Wives and Grandmothers
Sergio Moraes dedicated his vote to his granddaughter’s birthday. Family members, from a 93-year-old grandmother to wives and grandchildren, were among the most common reasons given for the pro-impeachment vote.
3. God
God and religion were a favorite reason for voting for impeachment, with lawmakers making dedications like “for the foundations of Christianity” and “for the evangelical nation.”
4. Jerusalem
Bizarrely, Ronaldo Fonseca even went as far as saying he cast his vote for “peace in Jerusalem.”
5. Fear of Communism
Various lawmakers also voted for impeachment out of fear of communism, saying their pro-impeachment ballots were for “the communism haunting the country” and “to not be red like Venezuela and North Korea.” [1]
These stated reasons reflect a circus atmosphere. Some of Brazil's Senators' expressions of nostalgia for the post-1964 military dictatorship during the Impeachment vote reveals no shortage of reactionaries reenacting history's episodes of oppression of the masses. More important, the absurdity of this circus shouldn't distract our seeing the blatant power play happening here.
The Brazilian public figures leading the impeachment of Rousseff show no hint of purging corruption from their body politic. Corruption of Brazil's public figures is widespread. Simply look at the Senator overseeing this Impeachment vote to see double standards and hypocrisy exposing this anti-corruption act for the farce that it is:
Renan Calheiros, the president of the Senate - who oversaw today's impeachment vote - is the target of no fewer than nine separate money laundering/corruption Car Wash lines of investigation, plus another two criminal probes. [2]
Of course, pro-Impeachment voices could say flawed detractors and accusers cannot be a basis to remain indifferent to Presidential corruption, especially if preserving the rule of law is important. That is a fair point. But how deeply do Rousseff's opponents need to be implicated in corruption themselves before we ask if impeachment is motivated by such a noble intention?
Next, if Brazil's Senate conducts a trial, then enter Rousseff's potential successor current Vice President Michel Temer:
His administration is born with the original sin of being illegal and massively unpopular; his approval rating floats between an epic 1 percent and 2 percent. He was already fined last week for violating campaign finance limits. And, predictably, he's drowning in a corruption swamp - named in two Car Wash plea bargains and accused of being part of an illegal scheme of ethanol buying; he may become ineligible for the next eight years. Almost 60 percent of Brazilians also want him impeached - on the same charges leveled against Rousseff. [3]
Temer's pending legal problems have not deterred his stating preferences for both his economic advisory staff and economic policy direction:
Two weeks ago, Reuters reported that Temer’s leading choice to run the central bank is the chair of Goldman Sachs in Brazil, Paulo Leme. Today, Reuters reported that “Murilo Portugal, the head of Brazil’s most powerful banking industry lobby” — and a long-time IMF official — “has emerged as a strong candidate to become finance minister if Temer takes power.” Temer also vowed that he would embrace austerity for Brazil’s already-suffering population: He “intends to downsize the government” and “slash spending.” [4]
This economic policy shift indicates Brazil's possible diverting from the economic cooperative called the BRICS which seeks to enable its members to exist independently of the IMF. Thus is the Rousseff Impeachment an essential part of the most recent Color Revolution occurring this time in Brazil?
Brazil's current political conditions show democracy often functions as a progressively adorned formality that confers little sovereignty to the masses. Both revolutions are democracies are manufactured, establishing no effective institutions and movements addressing the needs of the subject nations. There seems to be a consistent pattern of color revolutions occurring in nations whose election results were deemed undesirable by the U.S. Are these coincidences recognized only by conspiracy theorists? Or, a legal coup executed by Rouseff's domestic opponents with the undeclared yet real support from the U.S.? Apply your own critical thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment