When the President of the Republic participates in an event where the judiciary leadership is accused of manipulation and of conducting an exceptional trial, she is weakening Brazilian democracy. That is what President Dilma did. What she did not explicitly say, former President Lula did. What she demonstrated at the 5th PT Congress, through action or omission, is serious.
Dilma knew what the opening of her party's 5th Congress would entail. She knew that those convicted in the Mensalão scandal would be defended there. At the same time, as head of the Executive Branch, she could not participate in an event where the Brazilian justice system was under attack. The Supreme Federal Court followed all due process. Dilma consented – through her silence and presence – to the accusations against the Court. She is a member of the PT and is the candidate. The situation was delicate, but she could only participate in a sober event where what happened did not occur.
President Lula, as is his wont, did what he said he wouldn't do and accused the trial of being the result of the biggest smear campaign. Dilma thinks she protected herself behind indirect statements such as that PT members have thick skin or that the party is going through difficult times. She thought she had stayed neutral, but she was taking sides.
The head of the executive branch of a democratic government can only attend a meeting of party members where the Judiciary is attacked if it is to defend it. Her silence places her on the side of those who accused the process of being exceptional. She knows the difference perfectly well.
Her friends and colleagues José Dirceu, José Genoino, Delúbio Soares, João Paulo Cunha, and allies from other parties were investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office and indicted. The Supreme Federal Court accepted the indictment and, during the seven years of proceedings, granted the defendants full right to defense and is reviewing appeals. The judges were mostly chosen by her or her predecessor. There was a change of judges, but not of judgment in the highest court in the country. They were found guilty.
The trial was based on the laws and the Constitution. The activists can shout whatever they want, but the serious issue is the president being there, consenting through silence or indirect mentions that are interpreted by the activists as agreement. While she holds office, she is not just Dilma; she represents the Executive Branch.
Dilma may feel solidarity with her colleagues. That's natural. But she cannot acquiesce, through silence or half-truths, with those who accuse the democratic government of failing to act. Her presence at this act of protest is an act with institutional significance.
Democracy has experienced several ruptures throughout republican history. It is a recent achievement that belongs to the Brazilian people. It cannot be threatened by actions that undermine trust in institutions, and by interpretations to which the president remains silent and, therefore, consents.
Dilma tried to maintain an ambiguous position until now. But that was a place where the militants would shout the party's official slogans. Rui Falcão, president of the PT, said that those involved in the Mensalão scandal were convicted without evidence in a clearly political process.
The president's silence in the face of this speaks volumes. The Supreme Federal Court spent ample time examining the evidence, judged, and convicted. Dilma may not have liked the result, she may disagree with the sentences personally, but while she holds office, the personal aspect doesn't exist in institutional matters. Activists can attack the Supreme Court. But not the President of the Republic. Her presence at that event is regrettable and weakens democracy.
Dilma knew what the opening of her party's 5th Congress would entail. She knew that those convicted in the Mensalão scandal would be defended there. At the same time, as head of the Executive Branch, she could not participate in an event where the Brazilian justice system was under attack. The Supreme Federal Court followed all due process. Dilma consented – through her silence and presence – to the accusations against the Court. She is a member of the PT and is the candidate. The situation was delicate, but she could only participate in a sober event where what happened did not occur.
President Lula, as is his wont, did what he said he wouldn't do and accused the trial of being the result of the biggest smear campaign. Dilma thinks she protected herself behind indirect statements such as that PT members have thick skin or that the party is going through difficult times. She thought she had stayed neutral, but she was taking sides.
The head of the executive branch of a democratic government can only attend a meeting of party members where the Judiciary is attacked if it is to defend it. Her silence places her on the side of those who accused the process of being exceptional. She knows the difference perfectly well.
Her friends and colleagues José Dirceu, José Genoino, Delúbio Soares, João Paulo Cunha, and allies from other parties were investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office and indicted. The Supreme Federal Court accepted the indictment and, during the seven years of proceedings, granted the defendants full right to defense and is reviewing appeals. The judges were mostly chosen by her or her predecessor. There was a change of judges, but not of judgment in the highest court in the country. They were found guilty.
The trial was based on the laws and the Constitution. The activists can shout whatever they want, but the serious issue is the president being there, consenting through silence or indirect mentions that are interpreted by the activists as agreement. While she holds office, she is not just Dilma; she represents the Executive Branch.
Dilma may feel solidarity with her colleagues. That's natural. But she cannot acquiesce, through silence or half-truths, with those who accuse the democratic government of failing to act. Her presence at this act of protest is an act with institutional significance.
Democracy has experienced several ruptures throughout republican history. It is a recent achievement that belongs to the Brazilian people. It cannot be threatened by actions that undermine trust in institutions, and by interpretations to which the president remains silent and, therefore, consents.
Dilma tried to maintain an ambiguous position until now. But that was a place where the militants would shout the party's official slogans. Rui Falcão, president of the PT, said that those involved in the Mensalão scandal were convicted without evidence in a clearly political process.
The president's silence in the face of this speaks volumes. The Supreme Federal Court spent ample time examining the evidence, judged, and convicted. Dilma may not have liked the result, she may disagree with the sentences personally, but while she holds office, the personal aspect doesn't exist in institutional matters. Activists can attack the Supreme Court. But not the President of the Republic. Her presence at that event is regrettable and weakens democracy.