To coup or not to coup: radical political reform is the only way to resolve Brazil’s political crisis

Demonstrators march holding a banner with a drawing depicting Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff that reads in Portuguese "In defense of democracy, Dilma stay" during a protest. Sao Paulo, Brazil. 2015. AP Photo/Andre Penner.

Political debate
in Brazil is reaching a new level. Since May this year, when the incumbent
President Dilma Rousseff was ousted and replaced with the interim government of
Michel Temer, the country has been contesting the narrative surrounding the
political ‘coup’. Meanwhile, the country continues to struggle with the
surrounding political, institutional and representational crisis, one that
since February, has been crippling the entire institutional framework of the
Republic and its infamous (or rather, infamous) balance of power.

The roots of
this beleaguering crisis are deep and diverse. But it is clear that it is the
distorted political alliances that come as a consequence of Brazil’s
‘proportional’ institutional framework are of central importance to the debate.
That is to say, that electoral system that serves the legislative powers at
their various levels (municipal, state and federal), in a system of coalition Presidentialism,
form the national order we see today – with all its oddities and failings. And
this national order has produced a Congress that is incompatible with the
programme set in 2014 by the suspended president, Dilma Rousseff, of the
Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT).

On April 17th
this year, the current National Congress of Brazil caused the nation world-wide
embarrassment when it voted for the impeachment of President Rousseff, despite
the lack of legal basis behind this horror-show of a decision. It lacks
political reasoning and is characterized by extremely conservative
fundamentalism. On May 12th, the Senate – Brazil’s upper house – approved
Congress’ decision. This has created deep divisions across the country, fueled
by widespread confusion and disappointment. Nevertheless, a margin of hope
remains, as the country-wide debate on the future of the political system could
be pointing towards a constitutional referendum that would establish early
general elections.

A Rousseff
return or new beginnings?

The majority of
the Left’s critics complain of a current political process that is conducted
with such malice and depravity. They warn of the headache that the interim
government of Michel Temer, chairman of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party
(PMDB), would bring as a long-term replacement to the previous Rousseff
government.

Within Temer’s
government, most of its members are associated with the denouncing of illegal
election funding and wider corruption, as well as supporting the ‘Lava-Jato’
investigation. Yet this interim government now behaves as if it has assumed its
position as the Federal Executive to promote an entirely new agenda from the
one that was given a mandate following 2014 general election. And as such, his
ongoing presidency of the Republic should be seen as an unwelcome tarnishing of
Brazil’s democratic credentials.

However, the
length of Temer’s provisional government, which neither provides stability nor
holds popular support, should not be at the centre of the current debate: Fora
Temer is not enough. For this interim government plays only a minor role in the
chaos of this year’s most talked about political drama, which culminated in the
political ‘coup’ that ousted Rousseff.  Yet neither would the return of
unseated President guarantee any true capacity to govern, considering the
congressional nature of her impeachment and the ongoing conflict between the
legislative powers of the Brazilian Republic.

Therefore, in
finding a solution to Brazil’s political crisis, we should be asking which
legal institutions have the capacity to break the impasse between the executive
and legislative branches?

What does a
‘counter coup’ look like? 

Stood in the
situation it is in, one of the possible solutions to solve this institutional
crisis would be to call for a constitutional referendum, in order to conform
the commitment to early general elections.

However, this
alternative can hardly be justified if it is understood as a political
opportunity, as it has in the past, but rather as the return to a serious
debate over the meaning of Brazilian democracy and the role of its institutions
– with radical reform in mind.

The majority of
the population (62% according to the Instituto de Pesquisa de Opinião) hold the
view that civil society movements and parliamentarians can unite around a
proposal for fresh presidential elections, which would set a kind of remake of
Diretas Ja – in reference to the largest nation-wide mass political campaign at
the beginning of the 1980s, which called for general elections as part of the
end of the military dictatorship that had dragged on since 1964.

Within the ranks
of the divided PT, there are those who understand that this is this alternative
is the best to bring them votes in the Senate (which in August, must vote on
the impeachment of Rousseff), whilst also ensuring reprisal against the
previous Rousseff government for its actions. This could be resolved if the
President were to block the existing agreement for a new general election. This
could be resolved if the President were to block the commitment to hold fresh
general election.

However, there
is a group within the PT feel that see the success of the political ‘coup’ and
its surrounding narrative as the best outcome. By this option, the PT could
distance itself from the tarnished image of Rousseff, instead realigning with
the name of Lula in its campaign to return to power as soon as possible.

The two largest
trades unions and social movements in Brazil, the CUT and MST respectively, are
not convinced either. However, they could well accept the proposal of a
constitutional referendum if it were to convene an Exclusive Constitutional
Assembly to, among other things, push for political reform – something that has
been frequently been raised in Brazil for years.

With this in
mind, it is clear that the situation in which Brazil finds itself in has signaled
both the need and the opportunity to organize a ‘counter coup’: to start debate
and to mobilize ahead of October’s general elections.

The Ongoing
Debate

The debate on
the meaning of the ‘coup’, and the now looming proposal of a ‘counter coup’,
has proved both polemic and far reaching – not just between competing groups on
the Left of the political spectrum, but also those on the Left.

The PT’s
opposition to the impeachment of President Rousseff has been based entirely on
the illegitimacy associated with the word ‘coup’, enabling them to mobilize
large parts of the Left. It is a body of popular support that for over 30 years
have seemed fragmented and dispersed, now supporting a party that –
particularly in Rousseff’s second term in office – became widely accepted as
being politically indefensible.

The term ‘coup’,
when in the context of the 1964 coup d’état that led to the overthrowing of the
democratically elected government by parts of the armed forces, obviously
carries strong historic connotations for the PT and its supporters. However, it
is clear that even the most fervent PT supporters know all too well that the
‘coup’ of 2016 does no align with its historic meaning in the strict sense of
the word.

Meanwhile, those
on the Left who reject the ‘coup’ narrative – devised and broadcasted by the PT
– are not only recognizing this conceptual, or historical, adaptation of the
term, but they are also looking to mark their distance from Lula´s influence on
the PT and their associated models of neo-Developmentalism. In some cases, this
goes as far as to question the representation of the ‘serious’ Left itself,
claiming that it is time to overcome the PT era and replace it with something
new.

There is as much
consistency as inflexibility among those of the ‘not to Coup’ narrative,
because they don’t want to allow any room for the Lulo-PT to take advantage of
this situation, presenting themselves as a progressive force being attacked by
the evil forces of the right – reminiscent of Joao Goulart’s government
following the coup d’état.

But if this
means of categorization is forced upon us (and it seems that it already is), it
would still be a sensible option for those who conform with the term ‘coup’ in
describing the events of May 12th understand the debate to be an actual and
virtual trivialization of the word. Because, in the words of the political
philosopher Rodrigo Nunes, in light of today’s context, “perhaps we still have
not trivialized the word enough”.

And so, where
is the democracy?

Much like the
term ‘coup’, democracy – this ‘empty signifier’ in Laclauian terms – is another
overused and poorly defined term. While a furor surrounds Brazil’s ‘coup’,
there seems to be little understanding of what it actually is and what how it
relates to what is wanted from democracy. This is despite the fact that it is
seems central to the debates concerning the country’s political and
institutional crises. Few seem to understand or see the opportunity that this
turbulent situation presents, or more specifically, that it offers the
opportunity for serious debate on the alternative way of doing politics, a new
national political project.

Early general
elections present this opportunity: to think about democracy in Brazil, for the
exiled political forces of left to exercise their imagination and capacity for
action. They offer a realistic opportunity for the mobilization of the Left,
and therefore the potential for a ‘counter coup’. With the strength of popular
support, there would be the opportunity to approve the institutional rites of
Congress and generate the required political debate – debate that is
fundamental to the reorganization of the social and political fabric of the
country.

PT members and sympathizers
of Dilma, instead of continuing to focus their efforts on opposing the
impeachment as an attack on democracy should perhaps provide a more
constructive input into the debate and see the upcoming elections as a viable
‘counter coup’, applying pressure on these institutions which, at the end of the
day, they both criticize and ultimately succumb to.

What is most
important to understand is that this current crisis is an ongoing process that
allows for the questioning of Brazil’s institutional design, as we know it
today. If Brazilians aren’t able to respond to this crisis in the radical
manner that is required, they are likely to see their political and social
rights take a step backwards, to a position far more threatening than that
experienced under Rousseff’s leadership.

And so, as the
country’s institutions collapse, the slogans Fora Temer and Volta Dilma no
longer serve a purpose. There will ultimately the need to face the challenge of
radical political reform.

If the state of
exception became the rule, it would make no sense to continue shouting “here
comes the wolf!” That wild animal devoured much of the village a long time ago
and it’s now our responsibility to save what remains. The system cannot be
allowed to continue in the same way, the way that allowed for the conciliation
between these beasts and ordinary men. We must accept that the past cannot be
changed, but the future can.

This article was
published previously by Asuntos del Sur.