Brazil Conference, April 2017-04-15
The rhythm of the conference was fast, interesting and overwhelming, at times. Numerous concomitant panels intercalated with quick networking coffee breaks, while numerous politicians, policymakers, students, and entrepreneurs gave interviews and discussed challenges to the development of Brazil and its solutions.
Amidst this environment, Marina Silva, former Minister of Environment, Presidential Candidate, and now spokesperson for Rede party, met Brazil Talk’s team for an interview. For a little under an hour, she responded to our questions on Brazil’s future, together with Zé Gustavo, Rede Sustentabilidade Party’s spokesperson. We talked about key subjects regarding the development of the country such as political reform, youth engagement in politics, and sustainability.
Calm and composed, she shared her visions and expectations for Brazil. She mentioned how the Brazilian party system needs renovation, and how this system, together with campaign financing, presents a barrier to entry for new people in politics — and, therefore, new ideas. Moreover, Marina explained her perspective on how this stagnation has led youth to not be interested in politics, even though this seems to be changing. Lastly, she also argued that sustainable development is already in motion, which will be hard to stop or even reverse.
We are very thankful to Marina and Zé for taking the time to talk to us; next, we present a summary of what we lively discussed, and hopefully it will feel like a call for action for our readers, too.
Every panel here mentioned the need for a political reform, but few people addressed the “how to get there”. What is your view on this point, how would that reform take place? What is the role of Rede in this, given the current polarization between parties, and the need for renovation?
I will begin from what you said, that everyone talked about a political reform, but nobody actually said what that would be like. I think there is an issue that makes it harder for people to talk about this: what they [politicians in Brazil] are proposing goes in the opposite direction of what society wants. They are proposing more power to the parties, more power to the old chiefs, and more money so that parties can make millionaire campaigns – at a moment where the society wants more participation, more protagonism, they are going in the opposite direction. At the moment of complaints against the abuse of economic power, to propose in a wide open manner a BRL 2 billion increase in the party fund, that is the institutionalization of economic power abuse and it is being catalyzed via the public budget. What has been done via slush funds, what has been done via “Petrolão”, via pension funds, via stolen consigned loans, via BNDES, even via Belo Monte? I can talk for a year [about this] (…) Now they are saying “ok, we won’t let this happen again, all guilty parties are going to jail, and now everything is going to be financed by public budget”. They are transforming the parties in autarkies; they already have the monopoly of politics, because you can only run if you belong to a party, and now they are proposing the legalization of the abuse of economic power – but abusing the taxpayer.
In this sense, could you talk a about the fact that Rede supports independent candidacies?
Actually, what we support is the ending of the parties’ monopoly. Since we still don’t have independent candidacies as people have in many countries, such as Chile and Mexico – actually in the democratic world, 9 out 10 democracies have some sort of independent candidacies. But since we don’t have that in Brazil, Rede has proposed to have a share of civic candidates. That means that the independent candidacies are affiliated to Rede, but not organically – they come in the name of a cause. Obviously, they cannot affiliate if they support topics that are extremely against our basic values, such as death penalty. But the right thing would be to have a change in the Brazilian electoral legislation that allows for independent candidacies to run for elections through an independent platform, with a list of people who endorse that candidate. Zé has an idea that one could create some sort of association of independent candidates so that they could reach the electoral coefficient, as it is quite difficult. And why is that important? Because the majority of people don’t have any power inside the parties, even more with the “closed lists”. You can try to share your ideas in a party, but it is unlikely you will be heard; people hide under these closed lists, and their goal is to achieve privileged forum – and escape the justice system.
Taking into account that the campaigning today is very expensive and that the independent candidacies would have a lot of difficulties in gathering funds, what would you suggest for having a system where the independent candidates would compete on equal terms with huge parties?
With public funding, the right thing would be to [formally] establish an independent candidacies system. In that case, they would have access to public funding. Perhaps a good alternative would be a mixed process of public funding, where individuals could have a contribution ceiling, such as BRL 10 or 20 per person, and that would also apply to parties. It is essential for us to improve the political system in light of the already existing experience and knowledge in the world so that the new independent candidates will really have the opportunity of helping renew politics in the country. The parties will also have to improve, and there is no way to improve the quality of politics in Brazil if the parties don’t improve themselves. The possibility that the parties might have a competitor that might surprise them, perhaps that will oblige them to have better criteria in programmatic terms, the choice of candidates, and characteristics of these candidates, in political, technical and mainly ethical terms.
Do you think that we are closer or further away from achieving an independent system?
Measuring through Congress, I think it is very difficult. We are working with a group of young people on a petition to support this idea of a constitutional amendment for independent candidacies applications. I believe that if we have enough adhesion, it is possible that it gets approved. This change probably will not apply to the 2018 elections. As it is an amendment to the constitution, it is a more time-consuming procedure. But it also depends a lot on our mobilization because society is increasingly being put aside in this process. What is happening is very serious. The closed list takes away the possibility of some electoral surprise. I was a congresswoman, but I would hardly be [elected] with a closed list [process]. I was never the priority [candidate], even of the PT [party] at the time when it was a party with the original ideals, the priority candidates were those of the majority tendencies.
Youth Engagement in Politics.
What do you believe makes young people not want to participate in politics nowadays? We have many friends who no longer want to discuss politics, let alone enter and participate in politics. What do you think prevents the young from entering the party structure?
(…) [Youth tends to think] ‘I would rather be at a college party, or anything else, or investing in a corporate side and making money than dedicating energy, time and youth in a political proposal, a party.’
Nowadays, even if not everyone is looking into politics, there has been a great awakening. In São Paulo, for instance, there were some really interesting candidacies of young candidates from different parties in the last elections.
Here [at the conference], for instance, we had a round table with Áurea Carolina, in Belo Horizonte, Janaína Lima, in São Paulo. It’s a very interesting discovery. Young Brazilians have been discovering this [new] way of doing politics. Our generation did not have any political education. After the democratic re-establishment in 1988, people who debated politics moved on to fill decision-making roles and management posts.
But our political education was left aside in the hands of political parties, who did nothing. So our generation does not understand exactly how it works, what to do, how to do it — only through rare cases where professors helped us, or through the privilege of being in a family that has a strong relationship with politics (…).
I usually say that youth cannot be ‘attracted’ to politics. This “attract the young” thing does not exist. Youth needs to feel attracted and engaged for politics themselves. And this distancing phenomenon that Zé mentions has been happening for a long time. The entire decade after the coup until the regaining of democracy, it was almost inevitable that the youth demanded space in politics.
Can you imagine my father, in the middle of a rubber plantation, if I had said to him that I was involved with Chico Mendes, with an underground party, God, my father would have died. But it was something almost natural. We were attracted to it, we felt compelled.
Anyway, maybe the way of being attracted to politics is to see new ideals because our fight was a fight that you [youth], sometimes, value a lot — but your cause is much greater.
Maybe it is so great we can’t even see it. Daniel [Hogan] says that our generation fought for freedom, thinking that, with freedom, we would build the world we wanted. Then he says the difference between our generation and the youth today is that they have to use the freedom we conquered to fight for the world they want. You have to fight to have that world and it is a much larger job, much harder, more tiring. Because, otherwise, if you do not fight, we won’t even have a world. And this youth will do using the rest, the few, remaining good politicians. Sometimes it is sad to give youth such a herculean task, but I like the biblical proverb (…)
How do you think, in today’s world with Trump, we should include the sustainability agenda into the political discussion, so that this is not just “EnviroBoring” (Ecochato) talk? How do we not become “EnviroBoring” people, and still make sustainability permeate politics and become part of public management?
Society has made a contribution in terms of mobilization, as I said. Unfortunately, contrary to all this, governments are increasingly refractory to the socio-environmental agenda. Here, I think we still have an advantage that Trump says what he thinks, in the roughest way possible. It is more difficult when some make a nice speech, but their practices are the opposite. This is what I call a hollow consensus: there is agreement, but there are no consequences. For example, Brazil, when it changed the forest code – “Now it’s zero deforestation! “But deforestation is increasing. Now we will have protests from indigenous populations, [and other issues] (…) as a result from that.
People are making up hollow consensuses. It seems that we only learn through the pain. Some not even through pain. The suffering that climate change is causing worldwide is already too much. I think change will come as a mutation process, where businesses and citizens do their part, rather than a transition between governments. It’s an agenda which seems they [the government] will have to run after or be pulled into it. Because what is going on is so serious and dramatic, that we have no other way out.
And what do you think is the biggest impediment, in terms of government, so that this agenda can move forward?
The project of power for power. People make speeches that appeal to their funders and voters, not to what is needed. It is not a vision for a country. It is not a worldview. And lastly, it is what pleases your own, who want that speech be put into practice. In Brazil that was it. The evasion of public lands is done deliberately because they go to the President and then he/she passes a preventative measure, a bill that will guarantee that public land for them. It is a triple loss. It is an environmental loss, an economic loss, since it is public property and finally a grave social loss. Unfortunately, this is the logic behind the power for power strategy, of money for money and this will only change if the public opinion is capable of making different choices. The United States made another choice and Obama was able to reposition the U.S. under the Climate Convention. He changed the pendulum, but now we’re going back.
A friend from the World Wild Fund commented that even with Trump and the setbacks in the environmental agenda, we have already started a process with no return. For example, some people are already saying they will not go back to coal, oil companies are already investing in clean energy, etc. Do you think that this rationale also applies to Brazil?
I believe in the mutation story. (…) That is, companies, governments, and society bringing about change each in their own spaces. For example, entrepreneurs say they will not go back to coal because there were pioneers who started the process giving it economic viability, competitiveness and technical response using a sustainable methodology. Well, if there is a clean answer, politically correct, why should I, businessperson, go back to a process that will be execrated and bring loss? In that sense, I hope it is a path that has no turning back.
There is one more thing: life will always seek life. If in fact, what is at stake is the possibility of destruction of life on the planet, I do not believe that the death drive will prevail. We’ll have to find the last resort in order to try to survive as a species. Since our existence depends on other species, there is no way we can save ourselves without them. I believe in this mutation, and that the change will come through a paradox: a dispersive aggregation and at the same time an aggregating dispersion.
The dispersive aggregation is the dispersion in the social fabric of the aggregating ideal that we must change to guarantee the conditions that sustain life. This is the aggregating dispersion that unites us. It is dispersing us, but it also unites us around a single goal: to change the development model.
As you create an experience here, it will create another experience there, that will soon see another surface. It’s another model, it’s as if we had a bypass to migrate to another model. Well, I have to believe that, because with Trump here [U.S.], Temer there [Brazil], that’s all that’s left [laughs].
Brazil Talk is a non-partisan, not-for-profit website offering new perspectives about Brazilian issues through opinion articles, interviews, videos, graphics and events.
The Brazil Talk team is grateful for Marina Silva and Zé Gustavo for contributing their perspectives to our platform.
All photos by Isabela Messias