FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

In the US and Brazil, Two Trends Underline the Creeping Fascism of Both Governments

Photograph Source: Palácio do Planalto – CC BY 2.0

The word fascism is undoubtedly overused in today’s political lexicon. It is used by figures from across the political spectrum as a shorthand for anything that one’s opponent does that is deemed sinister or disagreeable. This phenomenon has obscured the real meaning of the word, creating confusion and misunderstanding within the general public. One of the unfortunate corollaries of this has been a tendency to dismiss comparisons between today’s right-wing populists and early 20th Century fascism as facile and overblown. But this should not stand in the way of drawing parallels that ought to be drawn – those that do not fall into the category of this kind of lazy thinking. Historical comparisons should be evaluated on their own merits and not on whether the terminology surrounding them has been debased through overuse.

In the case of Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, the appropriateness of the word is now becoming self-evident through the emergence of one of fascism’s major distinguishing characteristics: the trampling over the judicial branch of the state. To be sure, Trump has already demonstrated plentiful fascistic inclinations. He has openly threatened the press, on one occasion even praising a fellow Republican for attacking a Guardian reporter. He has spoken of the possibility of serving as president for more than the maximum eight years that is allowed by the constitution, using the excuse that his base might “demand” that he “stay longer.” And he has also threatened to use executive orders to push his reactionary agenda, whether it be over his proposed wall along the Mexican border or his attempt to get a citizen question on the census. But all of this pales in comparison to what an aide let slip during a recent Fox News interview. Discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling against the administration on the citizen citizenship question during July 12 Fox broadcast, principal deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley made a startling admission. He said that Trump had said to advisors: “Listen, I’m not going to be beholden to courts anymore.” With this one sentence, he demonstrated an attitude that became of the hallmarks of 20th Century fascism: a complete lack of respect for judicial independence and the separation of powers.

In the case of Bolsonaro, this trend has a longer and more sinister history. During the 2018 presidential election, former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was standing as a candidate for the Workers Party (PT in its Portuguese initials), which had dominated Brazilian politics until a constitutional coup against his successor, Dilma Rousseff, was orchestrated by right-wing elements in 2016. Having left office with approval ratings of over 80%, da Silva was in good stead to win the race. He was consistently topping polls and had a strong grassroots movement backing him from the country’s popular sectors. But in the midst of the campaign, he was charged with corruption as part of the region-wide “Operation Car Wash” corruption scandal (which, in a twisted irony, has also embroiled the man who replaced Rousseff after the coup, Michel Temer).

During the trial, the presiding judge, Sergio Moro, used a number of unethical and legally dubious tactics. For instance, he ordered the court to tap the phones of da Silva’s defense team and then leaked some of the resulting recordings to the prosecution and the press. These maneuvers were so outrageous that one UK-based human rights lawyer likened them to the Inquisition, stating “the grand inquisitor [Moro] organizes, supervises the searches and procedures and arrests, forms his or her own opinions and then judges.” The prosecution’s arguments were based in large part on the testimony of a convicted criminal whom they coaxed with the offer of a reduced sentence in exchange for giving evidence. Their case against da Silva revolved around a purportedly luxury property that da Silva was alleged to have accepted as a bribe from a construction company in exchange for favorable contract allocation from his government. In reality, the property in question was a modest apartment that da Silva had never even seen in person. Moreover, he would hardly have had any incentive to risk his reputation by accepting it since he could have easily afforded to buy it himself on his salary as president. Nonetheless, da Silva was convicted and sentenced by Moro to six and half years in prison, making him ineligible to continue running as a candidate in the presidential election. With the frontrunner out of the race, Bolsonaro went on to defeat da Silva’s replacement, Fernando Haddad, who was largely unknown outside his native Sao Paulo.

So, what does all of this have to do with judicial independence, you might ask? Well, given these shocking facts surrounding the trial it has long been suspected that the entire exercise was a politically motivated conspiracy between prosecutors and Moro in a bid to remove da Silva from the electoral contest and pave the way for the victory of Bolsonaro. On June 9, these suspicions were confirmed by the release of a series of leaks by The Intercept, showing that prosecutors had extensive communication with Moro in which they planned how to get da Silva behind bars and out of the race. And what makes this a clear case of breakdown in independence of the judiciary is the fact that shortly after winning the election, Bolsonaro appointed Moro to a powerful position within his cabinet that has been dubbed the “super minister of justice” due to the wide-ranging powers that the office has been delegated.

The significance of this cannot be understated. Essentially, Bolsonaro has (at best) no problem with the judicial system being completely debased for political ends – and, needless to say, ends that favor him. Just as the Trump administration spokesperson revealed that Trump says he doesn’t want to be “beholden to courts,” this represents a full-frontal assault on judicial independence and, by extension, the rule of law. This all the more ironic given that the Trump administration uses accusations of a break down in rule of law as one of things on which it predicates its interventionist stance toward Venezuela. Yet here we have flagrant examples of it taking place within one of the major Latin American governments participating in the US’s coup, and even within the US itself. The late director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Larry Birns, described this kind of double standard that Washington has for decades has taken across Latin America and the wider world in order to justify its foreign policy as “selective indignation.” Now that we are seeing a debasement of the rule of law even within US borders, it’s become a case of both selective indignation and the pot calling the kettle black. Hopefully, members of the US public that don’t belong to Trump’s base might start to realize the inherent hypocrisy of Washington’s posturing now that it has reached such dizzying heights of absurdity.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
August 16, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Uncle Sam was Born Lethal
Jennifer Matsui
La Danse Mossad: Robert Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein
Rob Urie
Neoliberalism and Environmental Calamity
Stuart A. Newman
The Biotech-Industrial Complex Gets Ready to Define What is Human
Nick Alexandrov
Prevention Through Deterrence: The Strategy Shared by the El Paso Shooter and the U.S. Border Patrol
Jeffrey St. Clair
The First Dambuster: a Coyote Tale
Eric Draitser
“Bernie is Trump” (and other Corporate Media Bullsh*t)
Nick Pemberton
Is White Supremacism a Mental Illness?
Jim Kavanagh
Dead Man’s Hand: The Impeachment Gambit
Andrew Levine
Have They No Decency?
David Yearsley
Kind of Blue at 60
Ramzy Baroud
Manifestos of Hate: What White Terrorists Have in Common
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The War on Nature
Martha Rosenberg
Catch and Hang Live Chickens for Slaughter: $11 an Hour Possible!
Neve Gordon
It’s No Wonder the Military likes Violent Video Games, They Can Help Train Civilians to Become Warriors
Yoav Litvin
Israel Fears a Visit by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib
Susan Miller
That Debacle at the Border is Genocide
Ralph Nader
With the Boeing 737 MAX Grounded, Top Boeing Bosses Must Testify Before Congress Now
Victor Grossman
Warnings, Ancient and Modern
Meena Miriam Yust - Arshad Khan
The Microplastic Threat
Kavitha Muralidharan
‘Today We Seek Those Fish in Discovery Channel’
Louis Proyect
The Vanity Cinema of Quentin Tarantino
Bob Scofield
Tit For Tat: Baltimore Takes Another Hit, This Time From Uruguay
Nozomi Hayase
The Prosecution of Julian Assange Affects Us All
Ron Jacobs
People’s Music for the Soul
John Feffer
Is America Crazy?
Jonathan Power
Russia and China are Growing Closer Again
John W. Whitehead
Who Inflicts the Most Gun Violence in America? The U.S. Government and Its Police Forces
Justin Vest
ICE: You’re Not Welcome in the South
Jill Richardson
Race is a Social Construct, But It Still Matters
Dean Baker
The NYT Gets the Story on Automation and Inequality Completely Wrong
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Retains Political Control After New US Coercive Measures
Gary Leupp
MSNBC and the Next Election: Racism is the Issue (and Don’t Talk about Socialism)
R. G. Davis
Paul Krassner: Investigative Satirist
Negin Owliaei
Red State Rip Off: Cutting Worker Pay by $1.5 Billion
Christopher Brauchli
The Side of Trump We Rarely See
Curtis Johnson
The Unbroken Line: From Slavery to the El Paso Shooting
Jesse Jackson
End Endless War and Bring Peace to Korea
Adolf Alzuphar
Diary: What About a New City Center?
Tracey L. Rogers
Candidates Need a Moral Vision
Nicky Reid
I Was a Red Flag Kid
John Kendall Hawkins
The Sixties Victory Lap in an Empty Arena
Stephen Cooper
Tony Chin’s Unstoppable, Historic Career in Music
Charles R. Larson
Review: Bruno Latour’s Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime
Elizabeth Keyes
Haiku Fighting
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail