Social scientist: "The periphery never slept"

By Marilza de Melo Foucher - from Paris

Brazil Post - Social scientist Mônica Santo Francisco, 43, a resident of the Borel favela, is a mentor, organizer, and participant in the Borel Institutions Network, as well as the Ocupa Borel initiative. Founder and member of the Arteiras Group, Mônica Francisco participates in a group of women who produce collectively and self-managed work. This group is part of the Women Entrepreneurs Network. Mônica is also one of the founders of the North-South Zone Forum for Solidarity Economy. This Black, hardworking woman doesn't need to hide her beautiful face behind a mask to embrace her political engagement; she has the political awareness that without the organization of the excluded and without popular pressure, Brazilian politicians will not vote for the necessary reforms. The recent protests in major Brazilian cities have brought to light many contradictions and many hopes. The periphery has never slept, as Monica Santo says in response to my provocation.

Read the full interview below:

Monica, the protests held in different Brazilian capitals revealed various facets. The first outburst came from the increase in bus fares in São Paulo; however, throughout the process, the banners of struggle have increased and diversified…

– I read on the posters “the periphery never slept”… Why then has the so-called periphery never tried this form of mobilization before? After all, you are a witness that the demands and banners of struggle are many. They range from the lack of urban infrastructure in the favelas (for example: lack of sanitary and rainwater sewers, to the lack of garbage collection) not to mention the total lack of public services in the areas of education, health and public transport, and the persistent police violence…

How do you explain the numerous posters saying that the outskirts of the city never sleep?

– In fact, the favela, the periphery, that is, the margins, never slept, mainly because the police never let the margins sleep. Contrary to what you say, the favela, the margins, the periphery have always been in the streets, always shouted, always tried to seek their rights through shouting, in the streets. But the city never wanted to listen and never "bought into" the struggle of the periphery, because their struggle was always seen as minor, less important, or even due to the invisibility of the actors involved, or the negative influence of the media. This media that says that the struggle of the favela, when it left its "walls," was influenced by drug trafficking, by fear or complicity, which always eclipsed the struggle of the periphery. What exemplifies what I'm saying is the experience of Borel itself, after the Borel massacre in 2003, which mobilized high-ranking authorities with the slogan "I Can Identify Myself" and unfolded into an active network, existing today under the name of the Network of Communities Against Violence, which gives visibility to aid for victims and families of victims of state violence, primarily. If we sift through news related to favelas, we will see that they have always fought and demonstrated, but the strong repression and negative media did not amplify their struggle.

Even today, amidst the protests, a massacre occurs in Maré, and there is no perceived adherence from society, even with the favela taking to the streets. The adherence and echo in the streets came because it was an action led by the white, middle-class, and university-educated population; that's a fact.

– It is known that urban planning in Brazilian cities has never addressed the challenge of urban reform that includes favelas. Favelas have never been treated as a territory that has suffered from an unequal and discriminatory mode of urbanization. How do you analyze this situation in Rio? Governments come and go (both state and municipal), and land tenure irregularities persist, and territorial organization is nonexistent…

Well, one of the great Brazilian obsessions, and specifically in Rio de Janeiro, largely due to the disturbing proximity of poverty, personified and materialized in the favelas, has been to eradicate these spaces. All the policies conceived for the favela have been, and still are, aimed at removing them from the urban landscape and directing their residents to spaces increasingly distant from the city.

The first major intervention in favelas in Rio de Janeiro occurred with the implementation of the Favela Bairro Program, which aimed to urbanize the favelas, integrating them into the city and turning them into neighborhoods. There was hope that everything could move towards definitive land titling, and finally the favela population would have a land ownership certificate. In the 80s, the Leonel Brizola government attempted this with the "One Lot per Family" program, which gave residents a document with the plan of their property, with payments gradually made to the government, thus guaranteeing ownership. It didn't work out very well due to numerous obstacles in the relationships between governments and secretariats. Only a little over ten thousand families received the title, which was negligible in the vast number of favelas, but it showed a certain political willingness to address the issue, although it is not even recognized today.

Returning to the favela-neighborhood issue, the Program, in this sense, did not fulfill its role. Although it stemmed from long-standing demands of community movements, popular participation was not considered and contributed once again to the unresolved land issue, which remained stalled. The 1992 master plan envisioned urban planning, and this planning always sounds like leverage for attempts to contain or remove favelas.

Strategies were devised, many extremely absurd, such as the construction of walls around the favelas by then-mayor Luiz Paulo Conde. Lula and Dilma's PAC (Growth Acceleration Program) also didn't delve deeply into this issue in its "PAC Favelas" version; only one favela in the southern zone of Rio de Janeiro has undergone a land regularization process, spearheaded by ITERJ, the State Land Institute, which, among many other issues, causes apprehension because the taxes inherent in this process will be unavoidable.

The population is still composed of subordinate layers of society, and many depend on income transfer programs to survive. In a world where most households are headed and supported by women who receive around one minimum wage, these issues must be widely discussed, and popular participation is fundamental. Perhaps that is why it is much easier to rely on evictions. Rio de Janeiro has suffered violent favela evictions in recent years, with much greater effectiveness than in the 50s and 60s, as they are the result of a perverse gentrification policy¹ and the so-called "white expulsions," where leaving the favela is seen as a life-changing experience for residents. However, when faced with the reality of moving to even more precarious areas than before, they can no longer return because the prices are too high, which also expels others who cannot afford the high prices, also due to the new public security policy of occupying favelas.
Recent controversy has shown that, at the request of the Rio de Janeiro city government, favelas were removed from the Google Earth map, and that the name "favela" was removed from those considered "pacified," meaning those under police occupation. This might give you an idea of ​​how far we are from resolving the issue of definitive land titling, of the definitive transfer of land ownership to favela residents.

What is truly desired is that this favela as we know it no longer exists. Finally, a process I mentioned, which has been happening fiercely and silently in the favelas of the southern zone, gentrification, is becoming increasingly effective. This is happening because residents and former residents of affluent areas of the city have been moving to the top of Morro do Vidigal, for example, attracted by the prices, stunning views, and proximity to the beach. A luxury hotel is being built on top of the hill by architect Hélio Pelegrino, and pop artists have been moving there, giving it the look of a new Santa Teresa, a cool neighborhood in Rio that houses artists and intellectuals, the "Montmartre" of Rio.

The "native" residents can no longer afford to live with the rising prices, and in this vicious cycle, the issue of the favela does not translate into effective actions in this regard. As Itamar Silva, director of IBASE and resident of Morro Santa Marta, says, there is only "precariousness and discontinuity" in the works in favelas. The Morar Carioca program exists, but it hasn't yet shown its purpose, or rather, it's a continuation of previous programs with a new name and old actions, which I've already discussed in this interview. The struggle continues for the favela that never sleeps.

– In those ten years of Lula and Dilma's government, what kind of government programs benefited the favelas?

– (…) It cannot be denied that much has been done in accessibility, for example. Many at-risk areas have been eradicated since the favela neighborhood. But, the new housing, for example, is always built with very low-quality materials and shows damage in the first moments of occupation. Others, like Triagem, a neighborhood in Rio, which received constructions from the Minha Casa Minha Vida program, had its first floors flooded when it received the first heavy rain and the nearby canal overflowed, leaving residents from various favelas terrified.

We cannot deny the many temporary jobs that construction projects provide to the local workforce and the direct benefit of that. However, a structural change, such as a real housing policy, or one that gives the favela an infrastructure similar to that of the city, with sanitation, water supply, lighting, waste collection, in short, is still necessary. The impression is that it is not actually happening, because there is still hope of being able to eliminate this part of the city, seen as non-city. But many things have improved, yes.

– Monica, judging by what I read in the Brazilian “mainstream press,” the Lula and Dilma governments did nothing to improve the living conditions of the poorest and middle classes. A year ago, the popularity of these governments was intact; everyone praised the social inclusion programs. During my visits to the favelas, I witnessed a certain enthusiasm and hope. Many said that life in the favelas was much better than before; however, there was never a shortage of criticism of the governments. It wasn't clear whether the criticism was directed at local governments or the central government. In your opinion, where did the federal government fail? And what were the most urgent priorities that were not met?

– (…) It's not this government or that one, it's the favela issue that needs to be truly understood as another way of living in the city and given a public policy at least similar to that of the so-called formal city. It is unacceptable today for people to go a year without water; this doesn't happen in Copacabana in the formal area, but it does happen in the favela. Actions begin and end without any satisfaction for the population. Precarious, discontinued works, public money spent recklessly, and chronic problems. What we need is an effective policy for the favelas, and a government willing to face this head-on, especially regarding the issue of definitive property ownership. The favela won't be improved with police. It seems that not even a progressive government has been able to change this idea; on the contrary, it seemed to them the best solution.

(1) For readers unfamiliar with the meaning of this term, it is widely used in urban sociology. It refers to a phenomenon that can affect a region or neighborhood due to, for example, the establishment of new commercial establishments or the construction of new buildings, which will increase the value of the area and affect the local low-income population. This increase in value is followed by a rise in the cost of goods and services, making it difficult for long-time residents with insufficient income to remain in the area where their reality has changed.