Chronic pathology

Who doesn't remember federal congresswoman Raquel Diniz (PSD-MG), the parliamentarian who showered praise on her husband, the mayor of Montes Claros, Ruy Muniz (PSB-MG), during the vote that led to the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, and who, a day later, saw him arrested, accused of deliberately harming public hospitals in the city to favor a private hospital run by his family?

During the vote, the congresswoman stated: "My vote is [...] to say that Brazil has a way forward, and the mayor of Montes Claros shows this to all of us with his administration."

However, the congresswoman's dissimulation regarding her husband's practices did not prevent the investigation from reaching her. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is investigating the congresswoman, suspected of – along with her husband, who is under house arrest – leading a criminal organization responsible for crimes such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, fraud, defrauding creditors, and money laundering.

According to the Public Prosecutor's Office, a scheme was uncovered in which Soebras (Sociedade Educativa do Brasil), a philanthropic entity run by the congresswoman and her husband, earned and distributed profits and income through transfers to entities chaired by the congresswoman, thus engaging in business activity. The prosecutor's office pointed out that the congresswoman and her husband took control of Soebras in order to use the charitable certificate, placing private schools and preparatory courses owned by the family under its administration so that these companies could enjoy tax immunity and exemption.

According to the Attorney General's Office, the following irregular practices were identified: opening a branch of Soebras at the same address as the private institution to be incorporated; transferring all the assets of the private institution to Soebras; altering the shareholding structure of the institution to include family members (such as children and siblings of the couple); maintaining the CNPJ registration of the incorporated private company, moving funds and benefiting from tax immunity.

According to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the operation consists of distributing the dividends from these institutions to the heads of the criminal organization, in addition to shielding the assets of the couple's private property.

Soebras, controlled by those under investigation, owns no fewer than 125 educational and health institutions, all holding certificates of merit that grant them tax exemption.

According to Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, rapporteur of the inquiry, "the initial examination presents evidence of the direct participation of the congresswoman and her husband (Ruy Muniz) in the events described. This is not a case of news without any supporting evidence or news based solely on an anonymous complaint; therefore, the interest of society in seeing the facts clarified should prevail."

The minister thus authorized the lifting of tax secrecy for the companies comprising the economic group controlled by the couple.

*

I would like to share a thought with the reader:

A few months ago I came across a text – written by an American who, after marrying a Brazilian woman, lived here for a few years – that conveyed the following message: if you talk to a corrupt person in Brazil (be it a politician, a police officer, a businessman, etc.) and ask them why they do what they do, that is, ask how they can be intentionally corrupt, even knowing that this practice harms – directly or indirectly – thousands of people, they will answer something like: "I do it for my family" or "I do it to give my family better living conditions."

In other words, this means that nobody – or almost nobody – is corrupt simply because they enjoy doing evil. There is an idea that, from the point of view of the corrupt individual, justifies their conduct. And worse: often this type of conduct ("I'll do anything for my family") takes on a noble guise, as if this supposed "sacrifice" were, in essence, an altruistic gesture.

Here, therefore, lies the genesis of the problem: these people do not realize that altruism, that an altruistic gesture, is, in the vast majority of cases, giving up one's own interests to benefit a stranger. They do not understand that working for one's own benefit, responding to one's own interests, is nothing more than pure and simple selfishness and that, in developed societies, the sense of citizenship is much greater and more important than any and all individuality.

Moral of the story: from now on, whenever we see a member of parliament say that they make their choices for their family, for God, or "for the north of Minas Gerais, for Montes Claros, for Minas Gerais, for Brazil," as Raquel Muniz and so many others have done, let us be clear that this is nothing more than a chronic pathology disguised as moralistic altruism, corroding any imagination of a prosperous future for Brazil.