The Implications of Türkiye and Brazil on Global Democracy

Fears of global democratic backsliding have become all but ubiquitous among international relations scholars, as complications emerge from fracturing in established democracies, such as the United States, and the rise of authoritarian powerhouses like China that offer an alternative political system for countries to consider. Are such fears warranted? Is democracy in retreat worldwide? To expand upon this discussion, this article will focus on two specific case studies of countries that could help forecast the future directions of democracy: Türkiye and Brazil.

This article will take a retrospective look at the political atmosphere in Brazil in the aftermath of Bolsonaro’s tumultuous 4 years in office, and a prospective look at the democratic outlook in Türkiye in the wake of the earthquakes and the forthcoming 2023 elections. In doing so, it will analyze what the domestic politics in these countries can tell us about what’s in store for global democracy.

Türkiye

Türkiye is in a crucial transition point, wherein the intersection of earthquakes, the general election, and the war in Ukraine could prove to have a ripple effect on democracy in Eastern Europe and beyond. Türkiye is facing a dire humanitarian crisis, with tens of thousands of casualties, billions of dollars in property damage, and millions of people being displaced, because of earthquakes in the region. The sheer scale of these earthquakes and the disruption of life that has ensued for large swathes of the Turkish population makes it pertinent for the AKP to address the immediate damage and mitigate the long-term effects to avoid adding insult to injury for Türkiye’s already struggling economy. With Türkiye’s elections mere months away, there’s little room for error, as resentment from a lackluster long-term response on Erdoğan’s part could jeopardize his bid for re-election. In that regard, the decision to call for elections a month earlier could backfire if the aftermath from the earthquakes isn’t addressed properly and lingers in the minds of voters when they’re casting their ballots.

The world is watching Erdoğan’s response intently, as it could prove to be a decisive moment for Western democracy and NATO unity. Another 5 years could embolden Erdoğan to consolidate more power, further endangering the already fragile system of checks and balances in place and eroding democratic institutions. Domestically, an emboldened Erdoğan could take past efforts to restrict the information available to the public one step further, through cracking down on dissent and curtailing the freedom of press, endangering a lifeline of any functioning democracy. Internationally, a successful re-election bid would provide Erdoğan with a concrete victory for him to tout as proof of the popularity of his policy, which he could use to justify further distancing from the West. Erdoğan’s intent and willingness to stall NATO operations is present and clear, it’s just restrained so he can gauge whether his base is receptive to it or not. Erdoğan’s refusal to let Sweden and Finland join NATO until he extracted concessions from alliance members was a clear example of this, and it could only be light work compared to what could happen if he wins re-election. A re-election would serve as validation for his foreign policy that promotes Türkiye’s self-interest above all else, including its NATO allies. The war in Ukraine is a test of Western resolve, and more pushback from Türkiye in NATO operations would only undermine the narrative of a cohesive unit that is committed to upholding international norms, and with it, Eastern European security.

Conversely, if Erdoğan’s election efforts are unsuccessful, a more democratic Türkiye could help NATO present a more unified front against Russia and put more pressure on countries such as Hungary and Poland to fall in line and undertake reforms to reinvigorate their democracies. If NATO’s greatest spoiler were to suddenly embrace cooperation with its fellow alliance members, it would send a clear signal to Putin that NATO is stronger than ever. Any desire Putin may have had to see whether NATO is bluffing about Article V commitments in the event of an invasion of the Baltics would be extinguished, effectively deterring further expansion in the region.

Furthermore, if Türkiye is on board with NATO operations, focus would be redirected towards two other members of the alliance that are struggling with democracy: Hungary and Poland. Without Türkiye to hide behind, Hungary and Poland would either fall in line with NATO initiatives, or risk being condemned by alliance members now that they’re in the spotlight. Hungary and Poland need not completely reform their democracies to be an asset for the alliance, nor should we expect them to, so long as they don’t stall NATO initiatives. Once Hungary and Poland are pressured into cooperation, NATO could reap the benefits of a more cohesive alliance, which would allow it to be more effective at accomplishing objectives across the board, but also would put autocracies on the defensive. In the absence of hurdles, NATO could pursue large initiatives that would make them more integrated than ever before. Further interdependence would strengthen NATO even more and allow it to take additional steps to promote democracy and condemn autocracy worldwide.

Brazil

Jair Bolsonaro ran on a platform that stoked nationalism among the populace by scapegoating globalization, gender minorities, and environmentalist efforts to protect the Amazon for the economic problems that the country was facing. By diving headfirst into the culture war, Bolsonaro was able to draw upon and weaponize the resentment brewing among the Brazilian public for his own political gain, a tactic that’s being increasingly used by politicians around the world.  Populists like Bolsonaro are able to tie people’s economic qualms to social issues, such as climate change and equality for members of the LGBTQIA+ community, areas which they may be underinformed or misinformed about, and use that confusion to steer them towards them. They identify that there is a problem that is causing dissatisfaction among the general public, pin the problem on something, and then argue that their policies can remedy the fabricated “cause” of the problem. By exploiting the ability to spread information quickly and the willingness of some to take this news at face value and without skepticism, Bolsonaro was able to win the Brazilian Presidential Election in October 2018.

Bolsonaro’s tenure was marked by repeated attempts to undermine democratic institutions, restrict the freedom of press, weaken the checks and balances in place, and was capped off with the promotion of unwarranted claims of electoral fraud. The installation of military officials into high-ranking government positions and efforts to close Congress and the Supreme Court sparked concerns of a return to Brazil’s military dictatorship. Then, in last October, Bolsonaro was unseated by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a run-off election, putting an end to his four years in office. Bolsonaro’s war on democracy was far from over, however, and was carried out by his supporters, who stormed the capital, calling for Bolsonaro to be reinstated as president, in an event that quickly drew comparisons to the January 6th insurrection. A cynic may look at these events over the past five years and be pessimistic about for the future of Brazilian democracy; however, Brazilian democracy’s perseverance through all of this offers reason for optimism, as it shows the resiliency of robust institutions in the wake of right-wing challenges.

Among the reasons to be sanguine about the outlook of Brazilian democracy is the durability of institutions. Brazil was only able to survive four years of constant attacks on democracy and an extravagant grand finale at the capital because of its durable institutions, which have been quick to adapt and respond to the attempts at unraveling the system. The Supreme Court’s consistent blocking of Bolsonaro’s undemocratic attempts to expand his power were complemented by Congress’ refusal to pass bills that condoned such behavior. The future looks bright for these institutions as Brazilians have elected a president who has shown a strong commitment to maintaining the integrity of them and working with them to achieve his efforts. Furthermore, the rejection of Bolsonaro’s particular brand of far-right populism by the masses is an indication of the strength of the movement against autocratic governance. The fact that Bolsonaro’s blatant disregard for the liberal international order and his anti-globalization, anti-environmental, and anti-immigrant stances were ultimately dissuasive to the Brazilian public is a win for liberalism and can inspire people worldwide to pushback against far-right populists. While skeptics might point to the recent election of far-right populists in other parts of the world, such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy, as a reason to be cautiously optimistic, or even pessimistic, about the future of global democracy, they underestimate the effect that experiencing a far-right populist presidency has on the strength of the resistance movement. In the United States, for example, a major reason that Joe Biden got 15 million more votes in the 2020 presidential election than Hillary Clinton got in 2016 was because of the resentment people had for the Trump administration—resentment that was only amplified by the administration’s incompetent response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, after experiencing 4 years of Bolsonaro’s abrasive style of politics, Brazilians reached the same conclusion, and there’s fair reason to believe that Italians will too, and that Italian democracy will emerge stronger than ever.

Closing Thoughts

This article sought to expand the conversation on democratic backsliding by examining the democracies of two powerful international players: Türkiye and Brazil. Turkish democracy is at a crossroads, and it’s likely that the road it embarks upon will depend on the Erdoğan administration’s response to the earthquakes. If the response is successful and receives public praise, it could allow Erdoğan to secure another term, which could spell the end of Turkish democracy. If the response is lackluster and receives continued scrutiny, then a challenger could unseat Erdoğan and revitalize Turkish democracy through pursuing domestic reforms to strengthen the institutions and increase cooperation with its NATO allies, bolstering European democracy in the process. Similarly, Brazil’s democratic resilience offers a case for optimism about the ability of democracy to persevere against right-wing power grabs. Brazil’s ability to withstand several massive shocks to the system indicates remarkable democratic resilience, and not only does Lula’s victory offer a beacon of hope for protestors around the world who are fighting to reverse democratic backsliding in their country, it provides optimism for democratic prospects in other countries, such as Italy. Ultimately, it’s time to look closely at Turkish politics and see if their democracy shares the same resilience as Brazil’s.

The Future of Climate Policy for Brazil and the United States after Bolsonaro and Trump

On October 30th, 2022, former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva beat incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential election. It was a close election, with Lula getting 50.9% of the vote and Bolsonaro getting 49.1%. Bolsonaro had a turbulent and divisive one-term presidency with attacks on the democratic institutions in Brazil, improper COVID-19 policies which left 700,000 citizens dead, unfounded claims of voter fraud in the most recent presidential election, and telling his supporters to take to the street in protest. Now, if you think that this all sounds familiar, you are right. Former United States president, Donald Trump, also had quite a divisive and controversial presidential term that has similarities to Bolsonaro’s in terms of ideologies and policies. However, one of the most impactful and important ways that these two conservative presidents were similar was their climate and environmental policies. The two almost seemed to copy and bounce off each other with such matching policies and rollbacks. Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have similar degradation of environmental policies such as wanting to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords and dismantling their federal environmental agencies, the EPA and the MMA. However, now that both countries’ recent elections have ousted both the right-wing presidents, Biden and Lula are now cutting back on conservative climate policy to try to fill the gap.

The Paris Climate Accords

What exactly are the Paris Climate Accords? Put simply, they are a legally binding international treaty concerning climate change. In December 2015, world leaders came together at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France because they agreed that climate change is a global emergency that all the countries of the world need to concern themselves with. The agreement that they came up with a set of long-term goals for the 194 countries in attendance. The agreement’s main goals were to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, limit the Earth’s temperature rise to 1.5C, review countries’ commitments to cutting emissions every five years, and provide financial aid to developing countries who need help financing environmental policies. Every five years, each country is expected to submit a climate action plan to the United Nations. In that plan should be the actions they plan to take to meet the agreed upon long-terms of the Paris Agreement, which are mandatory. This plan lets countries chart their own course on how they contribute to fighting climate change that best suits them. This will spark a huge economic boom for the rest of the century. There are greener jobs everywhere now, from the manufacturing of electric cars and the installation of solar panels. Not only will this plan help fight global climate change but it will also help the global economy. So why then, did Trump and Bolsonaro want to withdraw their countries from the Paris Climate Accords? In 2017, not even two years after the agreement was signed by the United States, Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the agreement. In a press statement from the State Department that came out in November 2019, it stated that the US would withdraw from the accords because of “its unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by the US pledges made under the Agreement.” It also claimed that the United States does not need the help or regulations of the UN because they have already been reducing emissions and ensuring the citizen’s access to affordable energy options. However, it promised to continue to work with other countries to react to the effects and impacts of climate change. Others believe that Trump pulled out of this agreement because it would be popular with his voters and supporters, who work in the fossil fuel industries.The US now represents around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains the world's biggest and most powerful economy. So, when they are the only country so far to withdraw from this agreement, it raises a global problem of trust and responsibility.

Bolsonaro’s presidency

Early on in Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign, he said that he wanted to withdraw Brazil from the Paris Agreement. Just before the election, Bolsonaro changed his plan saying that he would keep Brazil in for now but only if certain conditions were met. While his mind kept changing about this particular agreement, he was dead-set on pulling out of others, such as the 2019 United Nations Climate Conference (COP25) and Brazil’s 2015 carbon emissions education pledge. In 2018, Bolsonaro said that Brazil would remain in the agreement if someone could give him a written guarantee that there would be no “Triple A” project and no “independence of any indigenous area” Triple A is a proposal of an NGO from Colombia for some protected areas between the Andes and the Atlantic. Bolsonaro thought that this proposal is a conspiracy to take the Amazon rainforest away from Brazil. When he referred to the “independence of indigenous areas,” what he really meant was foreign governments are trying to get indigenous communities to declare independence from Brazil so that those governments can take the Amazon as their own. While Bolsonaro eventually scraped his pledge to withdraw from the agreement, and the US remains the only country to actually do so, this could have set a dangerous precedent for other powerhouse countries to leave the agreement as well, effectively nullifying it.

Comparing Trump’s environmental policies to Bolsonaro

Trump and Bolsonaro also had similar plans to defund or dismantle their federal environmental agencies, for the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in Brazil, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). In the US, the Administrators of the EPA were deep in scandal and controversy. The first one was Scott Pruitt, a senator from Oklahoma, who was a fossil fuel industry enthusiast and had a disdain for climate science. He supported Trump in his rollbacks of the EPA regulation on multiple different issues. Trump signed an executive order in 2017 that would lift bans on federal leasing for coal, lifts restrictions on the production of oil, natural gas, coal, and shale, returns the power of such regulation to the states, and a re-evaluation of the Clean Power Plan. This is Obama’s signature climate policy which intended to cut 32% of power plant emissions by replacing coal with renewable energy. This plan only works if the EPA has regulation power of carbon pollution regulations. However, under Trump, this was not going to happen. If these carbon pollution regulations do not happen, the American people, especially the poor and people of color will suffer from it. There is also something called the Waters of US Rule, which Trump also wanted to eliminate. This was passed by the EPA in 2015 to include smaller streams in the Clean Water Act that could provide drinking water to a third of Americans, especially some in rural areas where access to clean drinking water is sparse. If the EPA’s ability to regulate the Clean Power Plan and the companies that produce fossil fuels, we could have a global climate crisis on our hands. Bolsonaro has used similar tactics to dismantle his federal environmental agency, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). In 2019, he announced that he would be stripping the environment ministry’s authority over regulations in the forestry and water agency, which is a big problem since the Amazon rainforest is included in that description. Critics of this decision said that the lack of clear directives to fight against climate change is not allowing Brazil to meet its commitments to cut greenhouse gasses, which Bolsonaro has already done. Environmentalists at the time feared that since the ministry does not have as much regulatory power, deforestation in the Amazon will increase. In addition, in 2020, his government published 195 acts, ordinances, decrees, and other measures which would continually dismantle Brazil’s environmental laws. These acts would allow those who illegally deforested and occupied conserved areas of the Amazon to receive full amnesty for their crimes. Also, the supervision of fisheries was being relaxed so this could increase the illegal trafficking of tropical fish. These acts have also led to the firing of specialized agency heads and the hiring of personnel with little to no experience in environmental management. Under Bolsonaro, the Amazon rainforest has suffered an increase in deforestation rates. Brazil was once the standard for environmental conservation since they have a rainforest, whose protection is necessary for survival on Earth. However, since Bolsonaro took office in 2019, he stripped enforcement measures of the MMA, cut funding for the MMA, fired environmental experts and replaced them with personnel with little to no experience, and weakened indigenous land rights. There have been many forest fires and criminal activity such as illegal logging due to the MMA’s inability to enforce its regulations and protections. In the first three years of his being in office, the Amazon had lost 8.4 million acres, which just for context, is the same size as the entire country of Belgium. It is a 52 percent increase from the deforestation rates from previous years. In 2021, 17% of the whole rainforest had been destroyed. There are estimations that if that number reaches 20 to 25 percent, it could threaten millions of people and animals whose lives depend on the rainforest.

The new presidents and their policies: Biden and Lula

However powerless we feel as individuals about the inevitability of climate change, there is hope for the United States and Brazil in their new leaders. Both new presidents have promised to undo a lot of the policies, cuts, and setbacks to the environment from the last administrations. In the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, many felt that the Amazon’s fate was at stake. Lula has pledged to protect the Amazon and is the ‘greenest’ candidate that ran in the election. He was president also in 2003 and he often points to his track record during that term to show that he can succeed in his plans. He started enforcing a policy called the Forest Code which got many government agencies to work together to decrease deforestation. When Lula was in power, deforestation fell dramatically by 80%. Since Lula’s win of the office only occurred a short while ago, we can only look at his past performance to see if he will hold to his future promises to reduce deforestation. In the United States, the same environmental promises were made by Joe Biden when he was elected. Since Biden has been in office since 2020, we can look to see how the promises he made during his campaigns have fared. Biden has started protecting land that was opened to drilling. Trump approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which invaded Native American and farming land. He also opened up federally managed land and ocean for oil and gas drilling. Biden, however, has halted oil and gas leasing, reserved land and ocean drilling for oil and gas, and blocked the Keystone pipelines. In addition, Biden has started enforcing environmental regulations again. Trump allowed businesses that polluted to not be prosecuted by the federal government for any broken environmental laws. Biden has started cracking down on pursuing and prosecuting polluters while also suing fossil fuel companies for the climate damage they have caused. He restored flood protection standards, revoked the executive order that made it harder for agencies to issue environmental rules, and reserved the requirement to reduce climate considerations when assessing the impact of a project. All that being said, the future of the environment and the impact of climate change will be decided in the next few years. All we can do as individuals are elect the officials with the Earth’s best interests in mind and hopefully, the policies being created now will help prevent irreversible damage further down the line.

The Impact of Brazilian Privatization and Economic Reform

“Privatização,” despite the word's unpopularity even across polarized Brazilian party lines, has been one of the cornerstones of President Jair Bolsonaro’s administrative efforts to stimulate Brazil’s sluggish economy. Despite being unpopular, the administration’s privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has proven to be immensely successful, yielding a total net gain of US$23.5 billion within the first nine months, surpassing the government’s expectations by nearly 20 percent. 

The Bolsonaro Administration has over 12 privatization projects in progress, with more to be announced in the coming year. Most of these projects focus on energy, transportation, and production infrastructure. Authorities of the Brazilian government cite the lack of investment funds for Brazil to maintain, expand, and operate facilities, resulting in a push of neoliberalism (market-oriented reforms) to open Brazil’s economy. 

Despite being the world’s eighth-largest economy, Brazil’s economy lags greatly in competitiveness, placing 72nd of 140 countries, the United States ranks first, followed by Singapore and Germany. Brazil also struggles with the World Economic Forum’s “business dynamism pillar,” which accesses the private industry’s ability to adapt to changing markets, new business models and risks, and technological advancements. A contributing factor to such a low ranking, and frankly, a comparatively weakened private sector, is due to Brazil’s dependence on the public sector to develop, maintain, and safeguard national industries. 

The nation’s 418 SOEs, one of the highest in the world, ranges from energy, transportation, and manufacturing infrastructure, to financial and health services. To note, Brazil has more SOEs than that of the 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Through the privatization of inefficient and non-profitable SOEs, the government can reduce its operational burden, increase market efficiency, and create a more robust private sector. Currently, many of the SOEs are unable to cover their operating expenses, and rather than generating profits, they generate more than US$3.8 billion in losses annually, furthering their dependence on government funding. which takes away from the country’s ability to invest in other social initiatives. In the Bolsonaro Administration’s detailed plan, the government plans to keep SOEs that provide critical public social services, while privatizing those that attract investors or generate losses. 

Planned for the second half of 2020, the utility giant, Eletrobras (NYSE: EBR.B), is one of the largest SOE privatization projects (PL 5877/2019) taken on by the administration. In the reported 2019 third-quarter earnings, Eletrobras reversed its 2018 loss of R$2.26 billion (US$) by an increase in net profit of 132 percent to this year’s R$716 million (US$) profit. The drastic increase is a direct result of the concession of underperforming divisions and news assets beginning operations. 

During his campaign, President Bolsonaro admitted to only understanding the basics of economics, putting his full backing in his Minister of the Economy, Paulo Guedes. Minister Guedes, a popular free-market economist, earned his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. It is also important to note that in an effort to reduce harmful bureaucracy, President Bolsonaro merged several government ministries cutting the number from 39 to 22. Under this simplification, Minister Guedes became dubbed as the “Super Minister” of the Economy, as his ministry absorbed the Ministry of Agriculture (MF), the Ministry of Planning (MP), Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade (MDIC), and Ministry of Labor and Employment (MT). 

The administration’s most recent political victory comes after Congressional approval for the highly controversial pension reform bill, which passed with a vote of 60-19 in favor, late October. The much-anticipated bill will save the public nearly a trillion reals (USD$200 billion) in the next decade. Among other measures, the bill raised the retirement age for men to 65 and women to 62, raised workers' pension contributions, and reduced burdensome regulations for businesses. Special rules will apply to teachers, police, and rural workers. The Brazilian Stock Exchange Index (INDEX: IBOV) rose 1.1 percent after the vote, to an all-time high of 107,197 points, and this growth continued to reach an all-time high on November 7th at 109,580 points. Pension reform has been a pressing and intractable topic that has been relevant for several decades, passing the reform is truly seen as an accomplishment. 

The Brazilian Treasury reported that the public sector’s debt-to-GDP will reach 79.7 percent by 2022 and then decline, however, some estimates indicate that if the reform had not been passed then the ratio would have surpassed 100 percent. This would have increased Brazil’s fiscal risk and directly dampened investor’s outlook, a sentiment that the country’s market cannot afford. Moreover, Brazil’s Constitution mandates nearly 90 percent of all current public spending, providing limited flexibility in ensuring the nation’s 

With the pension reform passed, Congress will now focus on the administration’s next priority: tax reform. In an interview, the Brazilian speaker of the lower house, Rodrigo Maia, explained that there is “no other reform is more important than the tax reform,” which is expected to be sent by Minister Guedes in the coming month. Like many aspects of the Brazilian government and doing business in Brazil, tax policy and filing taxes are extremely complicated due to excessive government bureaucracy. On average, it takes Brazilian employers nearly 2,000 hours to file taxes for businesses on account of the heavily bureaucratized system. Meanwhile, for the same task neighboring Argentina and Chile take 312 and 296 hours, respectively, while OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) members take about 161 hours. To note, Brazil is in the process of joining the OECD and secured the Trump Administration’s support earlier this year. The process is also helping Brazil push the necessary reform to create sustainable economic growth. 

Brazil’s economic reform success continues abroad as Reinaldo José de Almeida Salgado, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry’s secretary for bilateral negotiations with Asia, stated that Brazil does not “intend to be selective in relation to trade opening,” a centerpiece of Bolsonaro’s market-friendly administration. It has already begun the process of signing trade protocols and agreements with nations globally.

Ultimately, by developing a stronger private sector, Brazil’s domestic industries can continue to push for greater productivity and efficiency and compete in the international markets. Although controversial, the Bolsonaro Administration continues to push for reforms to make Brazil more attractive to investors and to control the government’s quickly rising debt which limits its capacity to improve the quality of life.

The Flaming Lungs of the Earth

Since the beginning of August, international media outlets have been perplexed with the recent fires in the Amazon rainforest, circulating the hashtag “PrayforAmazonia” all over social media. Known as the “lungs of the Earth,” the Amazon rainforest is the world’s largest tropical rainforest, covering much of northwestern Brazil and extending into various other South American countries. The importance of the Amazon rainforest is colossal, however, its recent fires have made people realize the extent to which the human impact of deforestation is threatening the rainforest that produces up to 20 percent of the world’s oxygen. 

David Sirota, a political speechwriter for Bernie Sanders, refers to the Amazon rainforest as “our spaceship's life support system,” and this spaceship's life support system is on fire. In just 2019 alone, Brazil has experienced a breakout of more than 74,000 fires. In 2018, there were about 40,000 fires, and the reason rests solely on human impact, as there is a direct relationship between the outbreak of fires and deforestation. As put forth by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), the ten municipalities that had the most outbreaks of forest fires in 2019 also had the highest deforestation rates. Unfortunately, a deforested area is worth more in the market than a forested area. During deforestation, the trees are cut down and the land is burned so that it can be cleaned and prepared to house either livestock or be the site of agricultural practices. According to experts, a natural fire would not spread at the rate it currently is. In between the months of January and August, the number of fires has increased by 82 percent. As a matter of fact, forest fires can arise due to a few reasons, yet Ricardo Mello, manager of the Amazon Program of the "World Wide Fund for Nature" in Brazil, states that in the case of the Amazon, almost all of the fires are associated with human activity: “It's the men setting fire. There is no other scenario.” Deforestation happens year-round, however, in the driest months of June, July and August, the fires spread and increase to international proportions.

The fires in the Amazon also pose a serious threat to the populations that depend on it, both human and non-human. Fire spots in indigenous lands, for example, have doubled from 2018 to 2019. There were 5,242 fire spots detected by INPE in 2019, against 2,544 in 2018. In the case of the Karipuna tribe, the fires found at its border are a consequence of the farms surrounding the territory which are deforested and burned to house pasture for livestock. Besides, the Karipuna tribe consists of just about twenty individuals, and as they live in an area threatened by loggers, the tribe is actually under the threat of genocide, according to the Public Ministry. Moreover, indigenous lands make up 7 percent of the burnings, and 23 percent of the Amazon as a whole. On the subject of indigenous tribes, it is a fact that indigenous peoples have the habit of burning fields in the land, however, according to Ane Alencar of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), this has been going on for thousands of years. Therefore, the increase in outbreaks in these lands can only be explained by the invaders and/or strong periods of drought.

Brazil's Legal Amazon (BLA) is the largest socio-geographic division in Brazil, containing all nine states in the Amazon basin. Created in 1948 it seeks to plan the economic and social development of the Amazon region. Domestically, six of the nine states of the BLA said they had taken new measures in 2019 to curb deforestation and burning, including decreeing a state of emergency, internalizing inspection bases, and setting up their own geoprocessing bodies and local monitoring. In two states, Acre and Amazonas, governments even declared an emergency because of the burning. But even so, it is an extremely difficult task to monitor all sites of deforestation given the dimension of the forest.

Nevertheless, deforestation isn’t a new or modern practice. Why then has  this issue only just become regarded as “important?” The truth lies in the fact that people started to understand the complexity and consequences of deforestation once it affected the richest Brazilian state, São Paulo. On August 19, the population in the Southeast region of the country saw the sky turn black at about 3 PM. Talk of the incident quickly became one of the most trending topics online. At the same time, the black smoke reaches the rain clouds and residents began collecting dark-colored rainwater, which also rapidly spread all over social media. The Institute of Chemistry of the University of São Paulo (USP) tested that rainwater, and identified the presence of “reteno,” a substance derived from biomass burning and considered a burn marker. Consequently, with São Paulo being affected, the fires in the Amazon were noticed quicker by the international community and became an international topic as world leaders manifested themselves and started pressing Brazil on acting upon it.

“The fire that devastates the Amazon rainforest is not only sad, but also an international crisis,” stated United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson. “The magnitude of the fires is worrying and threatens not only Brazil and the other affected countries, but also the whole world,” said Steffen Seibert, Merkel's representative. Protests at Brazilian embassies all around the world took place, celebrities and spokespersons cried out for action, yet Brazil’s President, Jair Bolsonaro, isn’t facilitating change to happen at the pace that it needs to. Due to a personal feud with French President Emmanuel Macron and allegations that all international support is an attack on Brazil’s sovereignty, Brazil has rejected the $22.2 million package from the G-7 nations to help fight the fires. The feud escalated to a point where President Macron has threatened to block the free-trade agreement, Mercosur-E.U., due to President Bolsonaro’s policies. Despite the aid rejection, President Bolsonaro has been open to receiving support from Israel with their airplanes and pilots experienced in fighting fires, as well as complying with President Trump’s willingness to help. This ambivalence shows how rising nationalism, alongside President Bolsonaro’s new government, is hindering international responses to global issues like climate change.

The fires in the Amazon demonstrate a multitude of things about the current global system. First, while it is known how globalization facilitates the spread of information at an increasingly fast pace, as soon as the information reaches a few nations, responsive actions are not that quick. Furthermore, the fires in the Amazon showed the international community that even weeks after multiple fires were taking place, the world’s richest nations pledged to give $22 million, however, in less than 24 hours after the Notre-Dame caught on fire, $945 million have been pledged. The Amazon fires are just an example of how man-made tragedies which directly affect the global population, aren’t dealt with with the same vigor as other devastations. They have shown that pride over sovereignty seems to be more important than the survival of the world’s largest forest.

Searching For a Hero Like Trump The Parallels of Right-Wing Politics in Brazil and the United States

The arrest of Brazil’s former president, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. As a result of his twelve-year sentence for taking part in one of the biggest corruption scandals in Brazil’s history, Lula’s arrest opened the window for the opposing political party to rise to the occasion. The Social Liberal Party’s (PSL) candidate Jair Bolsonaro has done just that: garnering support for his far-right policies and winning the presidential election with a huge margin of victory.  His election is the first election of a candidate with far-right views since the end of Brazil’s military dictatorship in 1985. Bolsonaro’s rise parallels that of U.S. President Donald Trump. Both candidates campaigned on fixing a broken political system and gained support around general dissatisfaction with the political status quo. In fact, pundits often refer to Bolsonaro as the “Trump of the Tropics”. With Trump in the White House and Bolsonaro at the helm in Brasilia, there exists the possibility of even stronger relations between the United States and Brazil on many fronts. However, with a right-wing president in charge of the world’s 8th largest economy, it should be questioned how the international community should respond to his ideas and the policies he wishes to advance. The international community should also be aware of how these election results will affect other nations whose elections are fast approaching especially in Latin America.

Despite Bolsonaro’s clear win over his competitor Fernando Haddad, his support base was not always so widespread.  The left-wing Workers Party (PT) - of which Lula and his successor, the impeached President Dilma Rousseff were members - was highly supported amongst Brazilians until the revelation of rampant government corruption under the so-called Operation Car Wash: a string of scandals involving the state-owned oil company Petrobras accepting bribes from contracting firms in exchanged for inflated prices as well as the left-wing Workers Party using funds in order to pay for the votes of politicians in order to strengthen their political campaign. Despite the numerous arrests, Lula’s charismatic personality, charm, and past political accomplishments and promises placed the corruption accusations on the back burner. When Lula entered office in 2002, it marked a turning point for a country where the political elite was controlled by upper-class white people despite more than half of the population being comprised of minorities and people below the poverty line. As a self-proclaimed “leader for the people,” he proclaimed “hope has finally defeated fear and the people have decided it [was] time to pave new roads,” in his inaugural speech. Similarly, Barack Obama’s election in the United States marked a turning point in a country that had only seen white presidents. He proclaimed that “we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” Both leaders marked the possibility of change for marginalized communities.

The Workers’ Party, both during Lula’s and his successor’s, made accomplishments that cannot go unnoticed. According to the left-leaning magazine The New Republic, some of the Worker’s Party greatest accomplishments include the establishment of different programs such as affirmative action policies which increased the attendance and retention rate of students at national universities, as well as the largest cash transfer program which gives families living under the poverty line a stable income as long as parents invest in their children’s education and health by ensuring attendance at school and regular visit respectively. Programs such as these elevated about forty million Brazilians above the poverty line. Brazil’s selection as the host of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and Rio de Janeiro’s selection as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics, a first for South America, signaled a dramatic improvement in the economic and political stature of the county. However, this boom was constructed on the shaky ground. Many large-scale development projects suffered significant pitfalls from pollution, crumbling infrastructure, and protests against government spending. These problems began to shed light on the poor practices and corruption within the Worker’s Party and its leaders.

Until recently, Jair Bolsonaro remained on the sidelines, waiting for the right opportunity to appear. As a Congressman for the State of Rio De Janeiro, Bolsonaro made his political opinions clear in different interviews across Brazilian media. He once told a fellow female politician “I would not rape you because you are not worthy of it;” another controversial comment he made is “the lightest Afro-descendent there weighed seven ‘arrobas’. They don’t do anything. They are not even good for procreation.” Despite these, his most controversial opinions lie on how he believes Brazil should be run.  In a 1999 TV interview when asked about what changes he make if he was elected president, he responded with ideas such as “closing Congress” and bringing about change through a “civil war.” His consistent voice in politics allowed him to create a ground of support before announcing his candidacy.

Bolsonaro’s current policies are parallel to Trump’s policies in the United States. Bolsonaro’s most important policy (and most unique compared to other candidates) is ‘law and order.’ Being an ex-army captain, he believes in order to combat the rising violence is to decrease restrictions on gun laws and give police officers bonuses for the more criminals they kill. This policy platform has been the driving force behind Brazilian’s support for Bolsonaro.

Another policy reform he wishes to implement are environmental policies specifically within the Amazon. Bolsonaro has the desire to build a highway through the Amazon rainforest, which is vital for the filtration of carbon dioxide for the earth’s atmosphere.  With the intention as well to pull out of the Paris Climate agreement, this leads to the second parallel made between US and Brazil politics. Both candidates take on a moral position in the political reformation and use hot topics such as environmental regulations and law order as the basis for their campaigns. In times where many people craved change, Bolsonaro and Trump rose to the political sphere by being outspoken candidates making promises and statements the electorate wanted to hear from their political leaders who felt out by recent liberal administrations. Many Brazilians, especially the elite, have greatly supported this change of political figure in Brazil.

Bolsonaro represents hope for a Brazil that has been suffering numerous problems. At a rally for Bolsonaro supporters, individuals such as mother Cibley Lopes believe Bolsonaro is “the future of this country...He represents hope.” Brazil has undergone so much turmoil that some individuals are willing to support any candidate that is not of the Workers Party. Many individuals like Lopes are among the group of white elite who are rallying behind Bolsonaro for a new Brazil; these individuals are also of the belief that Bolsonaro is a leader for all people, marginalized or not. In some ways similar to Bolsonaro, the supporters of Trump are primarily either one of two groups of people: educated or uneducated white individuals. Both groups of citizens are unhappy with the political status quo and wish for a hero to emerge from the ashes of despair and turmoil. Since Bolsonaro has such similar policies with President Trump in the United States, the established relationship between Brazil and the United States will most likely only strengthen. While it may seem beneficial for both of these countries to engage in even more bilateral deals, it is important to recognize and address the response from the international community.

Before Bolsonaro was elected and The Working Party was primarily in office beforehand and  the United States and Brazil already had a strong and stable relationship. According to the United States’ State Department, Brazil is US’s second largest trading partner. Besides economic trade benefits such as these, the United States has invested in Brazil through educational, technological, and their space program which had yielded positive results. All of the investments the United States has made in Brazil simply proves that Brazil needs the United States more than the United States needs Brazil.

Bolsonaro’s election is yet another wake-up call for the international community with regards to the rise of right-wing politics. The parallels between Brazil and the United States shows the rising right-wing politics specifically in Latin America. If more countries such as Peru, Argentina, and Bolivia follow the path of Brazil it would not only affect the relationships of developed countries but will change the identity of Latin America politics.

Bolsonaro and the Far Right’s Arrival in South America

Introduction

In modern day studies of geopolitics and international relations, South America unfortunately lingers on the global backburner in comparison to regions such as Eurasia and the Middle East/North Africa (MENA). After centuries of colonialism and imperialist control by Western nations, many perceive South America as an underdeveloped continent with little political power.  This belief stems from racist rhetoric and inaccurate assumptions. While many countries within South America are not considered “developed” in the eyes of the Western world, this is due to years of political and economic destabilization by the west. Perhaps this very history of Western meddling provided the right conditions for a growing far-right movement, which has steadily been gaining traction in several South American countries. At the end of October 2018, Brazil, South America’s most populous country, elected the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro as president. Believers in democracy and human rights defenders alike were shocked and dismayed in his election, and fear for the changes that Bolsonaro will inevitably bring to the continent, and their lasting implications on relationships with other countries and the geopolitical balance.

Political History and Legacy of Brazil

Brazil, unlike the majority of South America, was claimed as a Portuguese colony from 1500 until its independence in 1822. One of Brazil’s most distinguishing sociopolitical features is its long established  history with slavery. Beginning in the sixteenth century, Brazil was noteworthy for having brought over more African slaves than would ever reach North America; in total, Brazil imported half of all the slaves that crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery, in 1888, more than two decades after the United States did. The social repercussions of the slave trade meant that Brazil became a heavily ethnically mixed nation, with significant intermingling of African, indigenous, and Portuguese populations. While it may expected that a sizable mixed race population would foster societal equality and tolerance, to this day Brazil remains a deeply unequal society, especially in regards to the intersections of race and socioeconomic status. The roots of Brazil’s unequal society largely stem from a failure to restructure society post-slavery. Freed slaves were left without land, money, or education, and centuries later millions of their descendants continue living with these same circumstances. In the modern day, Afro-Brazilians make up two thirds of the 60,000 annual victims of crime and two thirds of the prison population. After the eradication of slavery, Afro-Brazilians often still worked in modern forms of slavery, which was not outlawed until 1995. Contemporaneously, most instances of modern slavery and forced labor occur in rural areas, often in industries tied to environmental destruction, such as the logging industry. In 2016, the Global Slavery Index estimated that there were over 300,000 people in conditions of modern slavery on any given day.

In addition to the brutal and bloody legacy of Brazil’s slave trade, corruption also plays a large role in Brazil’s political history from colony to present day. Like many other South American countries in the 20th century, a military dictatorship ruled Brazil from 1930 to 1945. After less than two decades of democracy following 1945, the military once again intervened in 1964, overthrowing the leftist Goulart administration, and established Castelo Branco as the newest dictator.  Following Branco’s regime, military governments ruled Brazil until 1985, and the country had its first democratic presidential elections in 1989. In the 21st century, Brazil’s many presidential administrations were marred by corruption and scandal, and a growing distrust in the Worker’s Party which had been in power for several decades. Both “Lula” da Silva and Dilma Vana Rousseff were criticized for reckless spending and corruption during their respective administrations. However, under these Workers’ Party-backed administrations, the government made combating and assuaging hunger and poverty one of their top priorities. On a social level, Brazil’s rural vs urban struggles also take on another dimension when considering the debate regarding the use of natural resources and sustainability. In present day, there exists little to no data on peoples living in the Amazon rainforest and little regard for their residency in the region.

Brazil’s society, like many around the world, found itself at a crossroads during its most recent election, with its people divided between leftist and right-wing movements. The left wing of Brazil’s politics has become fragile, weakened by widespread corruption, while the right came out as the party of reason, calling for the restoration of order at any cost. With Bolsonaro’s recent election, Brazil is waiting to see just how high the cost of order will be.

Bolsonaro’s Rise and Popularity

After suffering the frustration and betrayal of several leftist governments ending with corruption charges, a 2016 poll found that Brazilian society as a whole had become more conservative, with 54% of the respondents shifting their social and justice beliefs to the right. As a whole, this has been accompanied by a growing movement of conservative Christianity, both in the public sphere and in the national legislature. Later during the same election cycle, public-opinion polls demonstrated that one in three Brazilians would look favorably upon a military intervention to oust the leftist government. It is important to know these facts in order to properly contextualize the environment in which Bolsonaro’s administration was born.

Jair Bolsonaro is a figure that is mostly known to the Western world as a “tropical Trump.” In actuality, Bolsonaro’s political history and infamously controversial statements may prove him to be a much larger threat to democracy in the Southern cone. Bolsonaro rose in the public consciousness by serving as a seven-term congressman after his military career. During his congressional tenure, Bolsonaro became known as a hardlined believer in law and order, and for some of his more inflammatory statements. Beginning with Brazil’s military and dictatorial history, Bolsonaro gained attention for saying in 1999 that he believed the dictatorship should have killed 30,000 more people. Additionally, Bolsonaro became known for several misogynistic, homophobic, and racist statements, over the course of several years. Since the beginnings of his political career, Bolsonaro has established himself as an extreme member of the conservative party, with many cautioning his neo-fascist ideas.

Once Bolsonaro publically entered the presidential race, he advertised himself as the candidate who would defend democracy and uphold the constitution. To help him achieve these goals, Bolsonaro promised his policies would focus on relaxing gun laws, reducing state involvement in the economy, and leaving the 2015 Paris Agreement. Bolsonaro entered the race as the candidate of the Social Liberal Party (PSL), an anti-establishment party known for their combination of social conservatism and pro-market policies. Bolsonaro’s running mate, Mourãu, hinted that Bolsonaro’s administration would go as far as to redraft the 1988 constitution, taking away representative input, in order to stack the Supreme Court. One of Bolsonaro’s key campaign promises was to help address the growing violence in Brazil. Unlike most countries, Brazil’s biggest threat to national security is not terrorism, but the heavily growing homicide rate within cities, especially in the favelas. In 2017 alone, Brazil broke its own homicide record, with a 3% uptick in murders, resulting in the murder of 63,880 people. Bolsonaro promised to face security issues with no-nonsense iron fist policies, such as relaxing gun control laws, allowing police more freedom to use violent tactics, and employing military forces to occupy the notoriously violent favelas. In Brazil, the drug trade and the resulting war against drugs further contributed to a nation-wide increase in violence.

Bolsonaro’s supporters mainly come from the more conservative members of society, as well as those who have felt betrayed by the Workers Party (PT), including the middle class, small business owners, independent professionals, members of the police, and armed forces. While some poorer populations were motivated to support Bolsonaro due to the worsening public security situation, the majority of Bolsonaro’s supporters are the rich and educated-- members of society whose voices are seldom silenced. Many members of Brazil’s upper-middle classes and elite have been fueled by class hatred, aimed at the PT. Echoing the dictatorial roots of Chile, Bolsonaro’s chief economic advisor (also hailing from the University of Chicago) promises to focus on privatization, a policy very popular with financial markets as well as media representatives. Many political analysts have cautioned that much of Bolsonaro’s rise to power has followed traditional steps towards establishing a fascist regime; Bolsonaro has threatened political opponents, activists, and labeled leftist organizations as terrorist organizations.

Spread of Far Right Movements in a Post-Trump World

In a post-2016-election world, it has seemed like there has been an outcropping of far-right movements all over the Western world. In the last decade, new right-wing movements have combined neo-Nazi groups with traditional free-market conservatives. Under the Trump administration, right-wing political rhetoric, often stemming from the president himself, has begun to normalize these ideologies. In Western Europe, this same rise in right-wing thought is not necessarily attributed to the working-class’s response to the economic state, rather, according to Liz Fekete, it stems from reactionary prejudice surrounding the war on terror, and its resulting increase in refugee presence. In the last decade, Europe has experienced several stunning terror attacks, from the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices to last year’s attack on an Ariana Grande concert. These attacks, often attributed to young people of color, have led to a distrust in the growing immigrant population, and a resurgence of xenophobic and islamophobic attitudes. In many European countries, the uptick in immigrant populations has led to stricter policies, including media censorship and frequent raids on left-wing organizations. The purported stress on welfare states  brought on by an increase in immigration into Europe left many joining right-wing thinkers in criticizing the policies and norms as laid out by socialist states. As with the United States’ 2016 election, many who voted for right-wing parties did so out of frustration with the leftist parties and their governments.

Bolsonaro’s election is not only notable within the context of its impact in Brazil, but also the entire continent. His election seems to mark the arrival of the far-right wave into the Southern cone, after its spread to countries like Germany, France, and Sweden. Bolsonaro’s far right policies have two simultaneous effects: threatening Western-established democracy and following the Western neoliberal order. However, for some, fascism spells good business. Some Canadian and American businesses suggested that Bolsonaro’s presidency creates good business opportunities within the resource, finance, and infrastructure sectors.  As outlined in his campaign promises, Bolsonaro has promised to considerably weaken environmental regulations in the Amazon and also privatize government-owned companies. While Bolsonaro’s administration presents a threat to democracy throughout South America, for many Western nations, fascism pairs nicely with neoliberalist economic policies.

Conclusion

Bolsonaro’s election was met with strong emotions from members of Brazil’s left and right wings. Throughout Brazil’s recent election cycle, Bolsonaro quickly gained notoriety for his offensive statements involving women, the LGBTQ+ population, and Afro-brazilians. Since its very inception, Brazil has been a socioeconomically unequal society, with racial and class tensions existing to this day. Brazil’s swing to the right is due in part to the population’s disappointment in the Worker’s Party, but also has much to do with rising inequality and violence in the country. Bolsonaro’s election means Brazil now joined the ranks of the United States, Hungary, and the Philippines in its election of a right-wing populist leader. Based on Bolsonaro’s campaign rhetoric, Brazil’s newest president exhibits a commitment to erase what the left-wing sees as years of progress towards a more democratic and socialist society. Analysts concerned with human rights within South America argue that Bolsonaro’s administration poses a great threat to democracy within South America, as well as human rights concerns for Brazil’s indigenous populations. The world will see if these fears manifest into reality when Bolsonaro takes power beginning in January of 2019.

The Rocinha Power Struggle

Home to some 100,000 people, Rocinha is one of the most famous and largest favela or slum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Homicidal violence is increasing in the favela with a vengeance of gun battles out in the streets between gangs and the Brazilian military. The military has now taken siege of the favela, in hopes to bringing the turf wars between gangs under control. Ongoing violence on the streets has brought some troubling concern to heads of state and impactful international organizations, who have worked over the years to decrease corruption, murder rates, and create an economically stable country. These concurring events and power struggle between drug related gangs could foreshadow a dangerous downfall of Rio which could be sinking back into its quagmire of violence, and instability as it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. The war on drugs continues to play a powerful driving factor in the violent struggle between Rio’s most powerful drug gangs, the Comando Vermelho (CV) or the Red command and Brazil’s largest organized crime syndicate, the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) or the First Capital Command, and the Amigos dos Amigos (ADA) or Friends of Friends.

Each faction controls a specific part within the favelas as well in middle- class areas, with graffiti of gang symbols drawn in the cities to identify which faction is in control at the moment. In 2011, the ringleader of the ADA–Antônio Francisco Bonfim Lopes, known by the alias “Nem”–was jailed but continued to operate the largest cocaine trade by proxy, leading to conflict between the top figures within this gang, and the rise of challenging rival factions, who questioned Nem’s leadership and how long he would be able to maintain a stronghold over the cocaine trade. Nem’s second-in-command Rogério 157, as known within the favelas has moved to pledge his allegiance to the CV, while the CV gang has also indicated that Rogério supporters within the ADA would be more than welcomed to join their faction. Some are calling it a coup against Nem, since the CV is aiming to grow their influence in the favela, ever since the winter of 2015 when the FARC, a Colombian cartel, began dealing less cocaine throughout South America. But this is not without phasing challenges from ascending, up-and-coming gangs such as the PCC, who are rapidly seizing influence in the region.

Prisons holding both PCC and CV supporters have led to a stark rise in violence and mortality in the local and federal criminal justice systems. Until this point the PCC had remained neutral into who would take control of Rocinha, since they already control most of the drug trade within the five states of Brazil. But now the PCC is aiming to take control of the main cocaine supply to Rio by diminishing the control of the CV: this is a proper low-level war that is currently taking place inside Brazil with tactical and strategic aims aplenty, with the PCC attempting to draw in new partners to solidify its own power base while simultaneously weakening its rival.

The appointment of the new Brazilian Secretary of State for Security in 2016, brought the Pacification Police Units (UPP) to a new low, because although the objective of the administration was to flush out the drug gangs from the favelas and deploy a significant police presence to these territories; the reality is that the gangs have seized greater territorial control and widespread influence, and that local police often escape confrontation or practice corruption. The gangs are aware that making relationships with the local law enforcement through bribes, although costly, correlates to a lessened chance of prosecution and retribution.

Before corruption scandals by the police units began to break, units were imprisoning anyone and anything related to drugs, increasing the amount of prisoners in the system by 160 percent since the year 2000. Historically, violence in the prisons followed demands for improved prison conditions, but now the rupture of the longstanding truce between the PCC and the CV over ADA territory and increasing influence in region has left hundreds of prisoners dead over the years. This could be primarily due to the fact that Brazil’s state prisons are under indirect purview of drugs gangs and organized crime. Most prisons are divvied up among competing gangs, while the government has only minimal control. “Experts describe drug factions as a parallel state. Gangs have long recruited their rank and file from prisons and organize trafficking and racketeering” from the walls of the prisons, such as in the case of Nem, although he denies connection to any outside crime through proxies. There is a reflection of what is seen on the inside of prison walls, and what is seen on the streets. Brazil has a concerning criminal justice conundrum that fails to eradicate gang violence. Brutal conditions prisoners face are barely liveable; penitentiaries are mostly always filled to capacity, due to police crackdowns, only increasing gang recruitment from within the prison. According to the Justice Department, Brazil houses about 650,00 prisoners in just about 300,000 spaces, with the population continuing steady growth.

Gun downs on the streets of the favela between gangs has recently worsened, with the Brazilian military having set curfew and increased pat downs for its residents aiming to imprison most drug related criminals, in hopes of decreasing all criminal activity. Most officers monitoring the favelas favor heavy-handed sentences over rehabilitation and other lessened arrangements. The leading cause of imprisonment are minor drug offenses, although there are laws that recommend non-violent crimes should not lead people into the prison system. The war on drugs in Rio is not the answer. Research has found that 70 percent of inmates who are released find their way back into the system because of the duties they carried out under their gang, the gang that had once recruited themin prison. It is imperative that in order to stabilize the conflict, the military work and strategize to rehabilitate minor drug offenders back into society, and put less minor offenders in prison.

Gangs would soon have few inmates to recruit in the prisons. Through positive reform, criminals would then be put to work in the favelas where they’d be redirecting their energy to building better infrastructure for their community. Favelas’ workforce has proven to become most creative, resourceful, and hardworking people,many of whom have often fallen into drug trade only because of the lack of government benefits they now receive and little opportunities open to them that would allow them to make just as much money as their gang related jobs.

From the cities to the prisons of Brazil, the country’s ongoing corruption has stemmed from top government officials, who make it apparent that the lack of oversight by government agencies has allowed criminal organizations to grow. The Brazilian Presidential election of 2018 will prove critical to the future stability of the country and justice system, with the President possessing the ability to appoint officials to confront with corruption, prison reform, government benefits, and the gang crisis. Currently, the lack of public investment, and a hands-off tradition in criminal justice driven by governmental policy has led the favelas to produce a culture of creative survival.

A False Sense of Democracy: Dilma Rousseff as a Scapegoat in Brazil

As Dilma Rousseff steps down from her position as the first female President of Brazil, some speculate that this is a victory for democracy and a step in the right direction. The removal, instigated by an impeachment trial and shrouded by rumors of corruption and fiscal violations, comes after a two-year process headed by the former president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha. Rousseff was the primary choice of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a man now facing corruption charges of his own. And at the time, she had taken up the mantle as leader of the leftist Workers’ Party, her election proving to be an enormous exercise in democratic election.

By appearances, Rousseff is being brought down from a legacy of corruption during a period of significant economic turmoil and a lack of consistent popularity—so what’s the issue? Perhaps this victory is only a superficial one; although Rousseff is not a pure or innocent figure in this mess, she is hardly the larger culprit—and what does it mean for the future when the bigger criminals in the game are the ones orchestrating the legal efforts?

A Troubled Foundation

Although Rousseff’s election was democratic, it was hardly a unanimous event. According to a Huffington Post account of the vote, she won with 54.5 million votes of the 143 million possible; however, competition against candidate Aécio Neves of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party lost her roughly another 50 million votes. According to that same report, if one accounts for abstentions, blank, null, and protest votes, as well as those voting for Neves, then Rousseff did not win by a majority at all.

At the same time these voting numbers were taking place, Brazil was under the impression that, following Rousseff’s term, the Workers’ Party would continue to see dominance in the 2018 campaign of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is Rousseff’s predecessor and arguably one of the biggest icons of the Workers’ Party. 2014 has since passed, however, and the situation is far darker. Currently, Lula da Silva—affectionately known as Lula—is now the subject of his own investigation. Federal prosecutors have filed corruption charges against him on several accounts, and in particular corrupt kickbacks and donations in relation to the Brazilian oil giant, Petrobras.

Lula and Rousseff have quite a bit in common when it comes to problems with Petrobras. Prosecutors in Lula’s case claim that he did not pocket illegal funds during his presidency, but rather gave it to oil executives, Workers’ Party leaders, and lawmakers, all with the intention of sustaining the strength of the Party. Rousseff, on the other hand, has claimed that the nature of her impeachment is uncalled for, and akin to a coup; her crime was a series of budgetary tricks to hide the growing economic deficit. These allocations amounted to some $11 billionborrowed from state banks to fund social programs associated with the Workers’ Party.

Rouseff’s involvement with Petrobras is a bit more complicated, and requires a timeline. Rousseff was chairman of Petrobras between 2003 and 2010, when plenty of the corruption in Petrobras recently revealed by Operation Car Wash took place. Operation Car Wash, pursued by Brazilian law enforcement to pursue and discover bribes in R$6.2 billion, is currently leading to massive internal upheaval in Brazil as dozens of significant figures are implicated. In the larger picture, Rousseff’s fall is far, but she is one of many.

Behind the Curtain

The question is not whether or not Dilma Rousseff has done anything wrong—that is almost certainly true. Although her impeachment rests on the grounds of her decisions surrounding budgetary reallocation, Petrobras’s vast corruption allegations also largely took place under her purview. What makes the impeachment trial tenuous, and subsequently makes its value and contribution to the advancement of democracy questionable, is the driving force behind it. The face of the impeachment trial thus far has been Eduardo Cunha, an evangelical Christian radio commentator and former speaker of the lower house. Accompanying Cunha is Mr. Michel Temer, the interim president and former vice president of Rousseff, a member of the centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party.

Since his vigorous assault of Rousseff’s qualification to retain her position, Cunha has faced legal charges of his own. The lower house of Congress in Brazil, of which Cunha is a former speaker, has since voted to expel the lawmaker on the grounds of graft charges. The vote was perilous to Cunha, coming in at 450 to 10; this sudden change means that, amongst other things, Cunha will lose the legal privileges of a federal legislator and can now face imprisonment. Mr. Temer, meanwhile, has so many ties to Rousseff and the Workers’ Party that he already stands on a perilous edge, and holds approval ratings as low as Rousseff’s due to his conservative inclinations and racial biases.

In fact, the men who have accompanied Mr. Temer in his rise to power have already begun to resign: his anticorruption minister and his planning minister, ironically, have forcibly resigned due to allegations that they attempted to use their powers to stifle investigations surrounding Petrobras and Operation Car Wash. Mr. Temer is technically set to hold his position for the duration of Rousseff’s original term, through 2018, but with the increasing scandal it is unclear if he will stay in power.

But Wasn’t This Democratic?

Brazil’s current situation is representative of a few things. The first, that when a state has a significantly diverse population, multiple candidates, and a voting populace who also submits null or blank votes in droves, the democratically elected candidate is not necessarily always the one that the greatest majority of the state actually desired. Now, this is as much a criticism on the system as it is the behavior of the people. Voter apathy is nothing new, though—nations around the world who identify as democratic regularly contend with the struggle to elect the most largely desirable and representative candidate, and to combat issues such as voting numbers, turnout, and legitimate nominations (i.e., null votes over fake names, fictional people, etc.). Brazil’s situation is critical because, amidst these democratic struggles, hidden layers of corruption are constantly shifting and maneuvering to take control of resources.

Eduardo Cunha’s position as a leader in Rousseff’s impeachment immediately calls it into question not only because of possible political machinations (rather than simple integrity-based questioning), but because Cunha himself is a culprit of corrupt dealings. And although Rousseff has made mistakes, her errors are by no means the most damaging—she is but a fish in the sea, so far as corruption in Brazil is concerned. However, the time for questioning the validity of Rousseff’s impeachment is past; Mr. Temer has taken up her seat, so to speak, and now the future of Brazil is in question, particularly given the fragility of its economy.

The curiosity here is that this has all been regarded as democratic. If we define democracy in general terms, in that it promotes majority rule with prioritization of values such as justice and liberty, and a representation of equal minority rights, then it is hard to say that any of this has really been democratic. By numbers, it is exciting to say that a country with 143 million eligible voters engaged in a democratic election to vote for a woman to be president. However, the reality is far more complicated: Dilma Rousseff was the pre-selected choice of former president Lula de Silva, a man who had championed the Workers’ Party, a larger body that has dominated much of Brazilian politics over the last decade. That Rousseff won, then, was no real shock; although she clearly had competition, it would be foolish to say that she won standing on her own two feet, or that her efforts were purely her own.

Furthermore, Mr. Temer’s failure to name a single woman or Afro-Brazilian to his cabinet of ministers, as well as his own recent legal troubles—having been found guilty of violating campaign finance limits—is hardly a nod in the right direction either. Rousseff did not have a significant or decisive victory, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Temer would be president at all had he not succeeded based on the claims afforded him as vice president. What ought to be a purification of corruption from the leading ranks of Brazil is instead a very tired case of ‘more of the same’.

The trouble with Brazil’s corruption is not simply a question of judgment by the people, a case of apathy in the voting populace, or even any grand exercise in stealth by corrupt financiers in the biggest companies in industries such as oil. Rather, the issue is that the degree of corruption, and its incessant presence, is practically old-hat to the people of Brazil. Rousseff’s impeachment and Operation Car Wash ought to be a sigh of relief felt around the world, and particularly amongst the Brazilian people, but it is not. There is a sense of complacency amongst those in charge in Brazil where corruption is concerned, and those who might claim to feel relief that Rousseff is on her way out are only fooling themselves—Rousseff’s absence offers no real relief, because her impeachment solves very little in the grand scheme of things.

The very man who urged on Rousseff’s impeachment has undergone his own trial, and the man who has replaced her as president has also been convicted of a campaign finance crime that makes it illegal for him to even attain the presidency via proper election. It is, in some ways, a stroke of luck for Temer that these circumstances came to be.

That Dilma Rousseff was caught borrowing funds to support social programs that largely benefited the poor so early into her presidency is simply unusual in a country where corruption so often goes unnoticed. Petrobras’s belated investigations, and Rousseff’s implications in it, are just one example of that chance likelihood. And although arranging funds for social programs seems altruistic—if altruistic politics are an accepted concept—the method behind the actionwas certainly illegal. Rousseff borrowed money from public banks, such as the Banco do Brasil and the Caixa Econômica Federal; this type of loan is illegal according to fiscal responsibility law in Brazil. Why? These loans can, unfortunately, be used to manipulate public accounts—which, on a governmental scale, can be critical. What does seem to ring true is that, by allowing Rousseff to be the face of this slew of anti-corruption efforts, people are being potentially misled as to the intentions of the government. The implication here is that Rousseff is not a political heavyweight being brought to justice; she is, instead, a scapegoat to distract from everything else happening around her. Men like Temer and Cunha are not rare finds in Brazilian politics, after all—they are entirely typical.

Where Is This Coming From, and Where Are We Going?

Corruption is hardly new in Brazil, both internally and concerning its international reputation. Ultimately, although Rousseff did make a mistake, it is important to note that her impeachment is not a victory against corruption. That false sense of security some may sense—though it is important to note that disillusionment is no stranger to the Brazilian people—is at the cost of incredible political maneuvering. Rousseff was left vulnerable by the Petrobras investigations, as well as economic downturn, and opposition such as Cunha saw a golden opportunity to take her down, as well as the Workers’ Party, from the leading position.

When a majority of Brazilian Congress is facing corruption charges, it is foolish to assume that good intentions rest anywhere in between. A problem with dynasties is that people can rest too much confidence in the value of a name. For example, it seems likely that former president Lula, when he backed Rousseff, put too much confidence in his own national affections, as well as the strength of the Workers’ Party, rather than on Rousseff’s genuine qualifications as president. This possibility is certainly plausible, given that Rousseff’s primary previous experience is with Petrobras, not with major governing. Furthermore, intimate reflection on her characterreveals further problematic qualities unsuitable for a tense position: “her blustery arrogance, her refusal to listen to even her closest aides and her apparent inability to understand just how much trouble she was in, right to the very end.” In many ways, Rousseff was a downfall waiting to happen in Brazilian politics.

If one considers the number of corruption charges in current government, as well as the sheer depth of it all, it is hard to see a cheery future. These problems are not new to Brazil, but the intensity of the spotlight on them is something newer: people go on trial, yes, but often are able to get by under-punished and unnoticed. It may not be the case this time for everyone, which is not a perfect outcome, but is certainly a step in the right direction. Corruption itself is not the most critical concern for Brazilians, but its outcomes are—the people face economic peril, governmental incompetence, and with the current leadership of Mr. Temer, racial tensions. In a country wrought with complicated racial diversity based around notions of equality dating back to the colonization of the New World, and economic tensions between extremely divided classes, it is hard to see a future that doesn’t put the endurance of corrupt politicians to the ultimate test.

Brazil’s Trilemma

Brazil is facing a challenging economic, political, and social landscape. The economy is expected to contract by 3 percent this year and the real, Brazil’s currency since 1994, has depreciated sharply against the dollar. Standard & Poor’s, the U.S. credit-rating agency, has downgraded Brazil’s investment-grade credit rating to “junk” status. Unemployment has also increased, with 100,000 formal jobs disappearing each month. Current president Dilma Rousseff is facing impeachment proceedings, a corruption scandal, and her approval rating has sunk to single digits. Ahead of the 2016 summer Olympics in Rio de Janiero, water pollution remains a significant challenge, and social tensions are heightened over accusations that the government has funneled spending away from social programs and into building Olympic infrastructure. This grim economic situation combined with unraveling political and social situations sets a difficult course for Brazil in the coming year.

Although a shift away from the dominant policy paradigm of state capitalism, in which industry is privatized but still heavily influenced and guided by the state, seems unlikely due to long-standing precedent and nationalism, Brazil’s economic performance is probably going to get worse before it gets better. Fiscal discipline is needed to lower the deficit, reduce inflation, and restore confidence in the real, but this will likely result in further deterioration of the social and political situation because these unpopular economic measures will be undertaken with little outside support. Brazil’s penchant for state capitalism is evident in cases like Petrobras, an oil company; Banco do Brazil, a bank; and key electric providers, such as Electrobras. These formerly state-owned companies have been privatized and the majority of share holdings have been sold off, yet the state has retained enough minority shareholdings in ways to reinforce the state’s influence over the industry. Ironically, shares of these companies were originally sold off in order to balance the budget. However, the persistence of state influence in these companies has made investors wary. Although complete privatization of the industries may help restore confidence for investors and boost the economy, Brazil’s nationalist sentiments are unlikely to allow this to happen. Petrobras represents a major source of revenue and is a symbol of state pride. Brazil is unlikely to let this industry slip entirely from its grasp, no matter the economic situation.

Under the administration of leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (affectionately called “Lula” by his constituents) from 2003 to 2011, Brazil thrived. When Lula first came to office, the economy was in peril amid fears that Brazil would default on its debt. Thus, Lula cut government spending and raised interest rates in order to stabilize the economy and achieve a fiscal surplus. It worked. He then implemented a three-pronged economy policy: fiscal surplus, inflation targeting, and a floating exchange rate. In addition to these macroeconomic stabilizers, Lula focused on improving the microeconomic situation of Brazilians. This emphasis on social welfare ushered in the Bolsa Famila conditional cash transfer program, which provided money to female heads of households for sending their children to school and making sure they receive vaccinations. Consequently, 36 million Brazilians were lifted out of extreme poverty and the middle class expanded rapidly during Lula’s two terms in office. Additionally, real wage increases, expansion of credit, and increased employment all contributed to the rise in living standards witnessed by Brazilians. Those living in the historically poorer eastern side of the country, women, and ethnic minorities especially benefitted from these social programs. The economic success of this era stuck with Lula’s Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT, Portuguese for Worker’s Party) and helped ensure the election of the party’s successor, President Dilma Rousseff.

However, Dilma has been unable to translate Lula’s policies into a healthy economy. We see an attempt to achieve a fiscal surplus, with a target of 1.2 percent for this year, according to the Economist. Although Brazil has since recovered from a period of hyperinflation, inflation still remains at 10 percent, higher than the regional average with the exceptions of Venezuela and Argentina. Finally, a floating exchange rate means that the market is left to set an efficient rate, but for Brazil’s faltering economy this results in a depreciating real. Brazil has officially entered recession, and the economic outlook is poor. Congress is struggling to make necessary budget cuts while also facing limited borrowing options due to the credit rating downgrade. Furthermore, microeconomic growth and social spending have stagnated.

Brazil’s weak economy is complicated by problems in the political and social spheres. The country faces a multitude of hazards including jarring inequality, social unrest, and corruption.

Protests erupted in 2013 over increased bus fares, and quickly devolved into violent clashes and strikes over general discontent with the government. Reforms promised by Dilma in an attempt to appease protesters never materialized, and the social unrest continues. More recently, Brazilians have taken to the street to call for President Rousseff’s impeachment and protest Olympic spending and the economic crisis. Government funding and resources have increasingly gone towards building World Cup and Olympic infrastructure instead of towards affordable housing, roads, and other necessary provisions for the Brazilian people. Furthermore, although social programs like Bolsa Familia helped reduce extreme poverty, inequality remains a prominent characteristic of the Brazilian economy. The Gini coefficient (a measurement of inequality with a score of 0 representing perfect equality and 100 representing perfect inequality) of Brazil stands at 52.9, according to the World Bank, while most South American countries average a coefficient between 40 and 50. The disparity in income equality in Brazil is clearly observed in the favela slums that surround urban centers, where violence and crime are rampant and the rule of law is incredibly weak.

Politically, Brazil is headed for crisis, with President Rousseff at the center of it all. She is currently facing impeachment proceedings for violating Brazil’s budget laws, although we are unlikely to see a definitive outcome of these proceedings until spring of 2016. Arguably worse, she is also at the center of a corruption scandal enveloping the PT party, in which politicians are accused of accepting $4 billion in bribes in exchange for unfairly improved contracts with Petrobas. Corruption is not new in Brazilian politics. In fact, the Mensalão vote-buying scandal during the Lula administration resulted in the resignation of several top advisors. However, due to the economic success of Lula’s term, it barely made a dent in his popularity and he went on to be re-elected in 2006. Dilma, on the contrary, has not been blessed with the mask of a healthy economy, and this corruption scandal is further eroding her legitimacy as president.

Brazil faces a trilema of economic, political, and social crisis. The current economic policy is unsustainable, as it is failing to produce the successful results it once did under the Lula administration. Digging the economy out of recession, reducing inflation, increasing employment, and restoring faith for international investors must become priorities. Furthermore, attention must also be paid to the microeconomic situation in Brazil. The government can no longer push aside the social problems plaguing Brazil, as inequality, violence, and crime create vulnerability, which economic instability only exacerbates. Political crisis also mutually reinforces economic and social problems, as investors become unwilling to invest in a politically unstable country and social unrest is fomented. Significant --and likely painful-- institutional reforms are needed to fix the economy, keep politicians accountable, and improve the social situation in Brazil.