[News] Interview with Brazil’s Ex-President Lula From Prison, Discussing Global Threats, Neoliberalism, Bolsonaro, and More
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed May 22 11:18:47 EDT 2019
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/22/lula-brazil-ex-president-prison-interview/
Interview with Brazil’s Ex-President Lula From Prison, Discussing
Global Threats, Neoliberalism, Bolsonaro, and More
Glenn Greenwald - May 22, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the full interview:
*Glenn Greenwald: Good morning, Mr. President. It’s good to see you
again, and thank you for the interview. This interview is for a
Brazilian audience as well as for an international audience. Everyone
outside Brazil already knows that you’ve been unjustly sentenced, a
point we’ll get back to in a moment. But many people have also been
asking me how you’ve been treated in prison, and you’ve said many times
that the authorities here are humane and professional. Is this still the
case?*
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: I don’t know what humanitarian treatment in a
prison means. I’m locked up, and I’m in solitary confinement — and it
really is solitary, because most of the time I’m completely alone. I
meet with my lawyers, and that’s it. And with my family once a week. I
don’t know whether to consider this decent. What allows me to endure all
of this without loathing it, and with a brighter outlook, is knowing
that there are millions and millions of Brazilians living in freedom
who, even so, are in worse conditions than I am. At least I have the
opportunity to have lunch, to have dinner, you know?
*But Brazil is the country you ran for eight years, and there are plenty
of people in jail. How do you compare your treatment here to the
treatment common prisoners receive in common prisons?*
Take the Brazilians who have to live in stilt houses above swamps:
They’re living as second-class citizens. A citizen who has to live in a
single 9-square-meter room, who has to have lunch, dinner, has to cook,
make love, go to the bathroom, and do everything within those 9 square
meters — they’re not living any better than I am here. That’s why I’m
less concerned about my own situation and more concerned with that of
millions of people …
*I get it, but are you being abused or tortured? That’s what people want
to know.*
No, listen: We’ve been fighting for many years to end torture. These
days, torture has more sophisticated forms. It’s based on plea
bargaining, on the thousands of lies told simultaneously over and over,
and people imprisoned for two or three years until they say what the
prosecutor or police commissioner wants to hear. I could cite the
example of [Antonio] Palocci’s plea bargain, where he’s lying in the
most unbelievable manner. Or take Leo [Pinheiro], for example, who’s in
prison and lying through his teeth to get out. The secret is to talk
about Lula. This has been going on for five years. You know that I’m
here even though neither the judge, the prosecutor, or the Federal
Police commissioner who launched the investigation have any proof
against me. They know that the apartment isn’t mine, they know that the
ranch isn’t mine, but they keep up these lies …
*So are they mistreating people in order to elicit accusations against
others?*
Yes, and it continues to this day. I joke with my lawyers that I’d like
to plea bargain and denounce Sérgio Moro, denounce the TRF4 [the 4th
Regional Federal Court], to be a whistleblower against the commissioner
that launched that deceitful investigation, I’d like to denounce
[Deltan] Dallagnol. I’d love to, you know, but nobody would accept my
plea bargain. Let’s see if you arrange for my whistleblowing to see the
light of day, Glenn, because I need to make something clear. There’s
this phrase by an English philosopher, that the curse of the first lie
you tell is that you spend the rest of your life telling more lies to
justify the first one. Do you remember when I went for my first
deposition with Moro? I said to his face, “You’re condemned to condemn
me,” given the huge amount of lies they’ve told, you know, in this
agreement between Operation Car Wash and the Brazilian press
<https://theintercept.com/2018/10/29/lava-jato-imprensa-entrevista-assessora/>.
Because Operation Car Wash would be nothing without press coverage. But
it’s a collusion between media, television, radio, and newspapers, where
the press editors get the material before even the lawyers do. Before
the defense lawyers received any news, the press already had. Thanks to
this collusion, you’ve woven a gigantic lie. Every day, every hour I
keep wondering, will GloboNews ever use the Jornal Nacional to say, “We
made a mistake with Lula’s case”?
*In the **interview*
<https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/assista-entrevista-exclusiva-com-ex-presidente-lula/>*that
we did in 2016**, you harshly criticized Operation Car Wash, insisting
that it was selective and an operation dedicated to destroying PT — as
you said just now. But Operation Car Wash went on to imprison Eduardo
Cunha, who led the **impeachment process against Dilma*
<https://theintercept.com/2019/04/21/autoritarismo-do-stf-e-da-lava-jato-nasceu-no-impeachment-tabajara-de-dilma/>*,
and also Michel Temer, who became president after Dilma’s impeachment
(though he’s been released, he then went back, was released again, but
at least he’s on trial), and also Sérgio Cabral, the governor of the
state of Rio de Janeiro. And now they’re aggressively going after Aécio
Neves, Dilma’s center-right opponent in 2014. After all this, can you
really say that Operation Car Wash was launched to destroy PT?*
Glenn, let me tell you something: Operation Car Wash has been selective
most of the time it’s been running. You’re a foreign journalist, so you
can investigate impartially. Check out who made donations to PSDB [the
Brazilian Social Democracy Party], and who made donations to PT. How
much did PSDB receive, and how much did PT receive? And what about other
parties? Conduct a thorough study, an impartial one, and figure out why
only [João] Vaccari of PT was sentenced for campaign finances. What
about the other treasurers from the other parties??
*But isn’t Aécio on trial?*
But Aécio isn’t a campaign treasurer. I’m talking about campaign
finances to show you that there’s been a focus on going after PT from
the outset. Why? Because they needed to take out PT from the government,
and since they didn’t manage to do so over the course of nearly four
elections, they needed to create clear ways to stir up hatred of PT.
Historically in Brazil, and I think the whole world over, this kind of
loathing increases once you accuse someone of corruption.
Listen, let me be crystal clear: I think if someone steals, they should
go to jail, whether they’re PT or not, whether they’re Catholic or
evangelical, you know? You steal, you go to jail. If the sentence has
been pronounced, if the facts have been established, and if it’s been
proven that you stole, you must go to jail. This is the kind of lawful
state we want to establish. Now, I want to challenge the people who
imprisioned me to show the world a single shred of evidence against me.
I’m not asking for anything else.
*But do you agree that Operation Car Wash is going after other
politicians, including your opponents from the center-right?*
Glenn, Operation Car Wash has been gradually changing into a political
operation that benefits whoever participates in it. I’ll give you a
tip-off here, a bit of whistleblowing that you can help investigate: Not
long ago, we found out that there was an agreement made by the U.S.
Department of Justice with what Dallagnol was handling for the Federal
Public Ministry, for Operation Car Wash, to the tune of $600 million.
*From the U.S.?*
From the U.S. And afterwards, it surfaced that Sérgio Moro had
authorized another agreement to the tune of $1.6 billion from Odebrecht,
here in Brazil. We also know that there are other monetary agreements
funding Operation Car Wash, but right now we don’t have access to the
figures. In fact, PT is demanding that the leader of the House of
Representatives get the Federal Savings Bank involved to help us find
out who’s made agreements with Operation Car Wash. Because in fact, any
time someone makes an agreement like this involving hundreds of millions
of dollars, they’re trying to build a political machine, they’re setting
up a racket..
Because in fact, any time someone makes an agreement like this
involving hundreds of millions of dollars, they’re trying to build a
political machine, they’re setting up a racket.
*All right, well, I promise you that we’re working on these issues, and
investigating these …*
Just let me finish, Glenn, I don’t want to stop in the middle of saying …
*Go ahead.*
The only thing I really want, the only thing, is that my case be judged
objectively. I don’t want anything else. I want the judges at some point
to care about having hard evidence, either from the side of the
prosecution or from the defendants. Did you know I had 73 witnesses but
that Dallagnol didn’t even show up to the hearings? He made up that
deceitful PowerPoint presentation and then vanished. The only person he
talks to is Miriam Leitão from Rede Globo news, and once in a while, he
grants an interview. He’s probably going around now on lecture tours to
make money. Anyway, I don’t want his beliefs to be the last word. I want
evidence to be the last word. If he can prove that I own what he says I
own, that shouldn’t cost him anything. In the meantime, I’ve been
completely demoralized in the face of public opinion.
*We won’t be able to settle this right now. You’ve got your accusations,
but it’s a question of evidence …*
Listen: When PT denounced the foundation that was set up with these
funds, Dallagnol went to Caixa Economica [federal bank] to try sign a
document and take over the foundation. Let’s put it this way: I’m being
convicted without any foundation, without any dollars behind me, without
any funds, and he’s walking free, trying to seize $2.5 billion. We
denounced him to the National Justice Council. But who’s going to judge
the case? The Council, which consists of, you know who? 8 members of the
Federal Public Ministry. So what do you think the result will be? Is
there any doubt?
*During the 2018 elections, we spent a year trying to get an interview
with you, like other journalists, but nobody was authorized to interview
you, even though some of the most violent people behind bars in the
country, including Nem, the head drug trafficker in Rio de Janeiro, were
interviewed in prison. But now that the elections are over and Bolsonaro
has won, all of a sudden the courts are allowing some journalists, like
Folha de São Paulo, El País, and Kennedy Alencar for the BBC to
interview you. How would you explain this?*
I have no doubt, Glenn, that everything that’s happened in connection
with Operation Car Wash has been to prevent Lula from running for
president. Nowadays I’m certain of this, the same way that I’m certain
that the U.S. Department of Justice is behind this, and the same way
that I’m certain …
*Is there evidence of that?*
Sorry?
*Is there evidence? Is there proof?*
I can only have strong beliefs, you know, about everything. The same way
that I’m absolutely certain that it’s interest in the petroleum
resources of Brazil’s pre-salt layer that’s behind everything that’s
happened to me and Dilma. Namely, the coup against Dilma, my
imprisonment, the accusations. You see, Operation Car Wash could have
had an important role in punishing the businessmen — if they’re guilty —
and allowing the businesses to keep on creating jobs, paying salaries.
They could have kept Petrobras from going broke, from being sold, from
being divvied up as it is. Anyway, I’m very glad that today they’ve
allowed this interview, and I’m grateful to you all for demanding this
in the courts
<https://theintercept.com/2018/04/05/habeas-corpus-de-lula-foi-decidido-em-um-contexto-de-sombras-no-brasil/>.
I should have been allowed to have interviews before the elections.
*Well, we requested the interview a long time ago, before the elections.*
I know. And I’m grateful that you requested one. But it was denied.
First, Minister of the Supreme Court [Ricardo] Lewandowskiallowed it
<https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2019/04/25/politica/1556213831_926319.html>,
but then it wasvetoed by [Dias] Toffoli
<https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/toffoli-veta-entrevista-de-lula-pela-segunda-vez-apos-nova-decisao-de-lewandowski-23125023>,
I think,as president of the Supreme Court. I knew that it was a game
they were playing, and that the game was: Let’s prevent Lula from
competing in the elections. Why? Because the worst nightmare of the
Brazilian elite is Lula returning to the presidency. But why exactly, if
they made so much money during my presidency?
*Yes, and isn’t it true, for example, that bank profits went through the
roof during your presidency?*
I don’t know if they went through the roof, but they grew significantly.
*They did, didn’t they?*
But the truth is that the poor ascended a whole rung on the economic
ladder. And as the lower classes began to go to university, to go out to
the theater, to go out to eat at restaurants, to travel more by
airplane, this began to bother part of the elite.
*But the upper classes also saw great improvements during your
presidency. So why would this upper class, who profited so much while
you were president, be so against your return to office?*
It’s because this isn’t just an economic question; it’s a cultural
issue. One has to remember that it was only a little over a hundred
years ago that slavery was legally abolished, and that it continues in
the minds of many. That’s why the greatest victims of police violence
are black, that’s why those who are black earn 50 percent less than
those who are white, and that’s why black women earn less than white
women. That’s why those who are black have a lower average level of
schooling than those who are white. Why? Because slavery is still
prevalent deep within people’s consciousness. It’s a harsh thing to say,
but it’s true. And this doesn’t change overnight. If we think about
civil rights in the U.S., things began to change in the 1960s, but how
many people had to die, including Martin Luther King Jr., in order to
guarantee that black people would be treated with dignity? Really, I
think deep down, it’s not an economic question. It’s set of a cultural,
political, and sociological issues.
*Well, let’s talk about some cultural issues. Your government was
responsible, for example, for approving the changes in drug laws in
2006, which were a great advance in differentiating between drug users
and drug traffickers. But as a result of these laws, the number of
incarcerations rose, specifically of black people and of women. Looking
back, how would you judge the policies of your government, given that it
led to increase incarcerations during your presidency and Dilma’s too?*
Let me tell you something. Between 2003 and 2014, we rolled out a range
of strategies and approved as many laws as possible to improve the
system of policing in this country, to reduce the rate of corruption,
and to put more criminals behind bars. If you look at anything that’s
functioning well in the Ministry of Justice, you’ll realize that these
advances were put in place specifically during PT’s government. Exactly
then. Now listen, we didn’t manage to solve the problems of public
safety in Brazil, but we did create the mechanisms, including more civil
ones, for the police to act more professionally, and we equipped the
Federal Police, we set up the National Police, all with the objective of
getting things done. And all of this is going down the drain now. I
remember when Minister of Justice Tarso Genro approved PRONASCI, the
National Program for Public Safety, which was a great initative for
reducing crime and helping out young adults. It no longer exists. I
think what’s really needed is a series of public policies to help
resolve the overall situation. What are two extremely important components?
First, take PAC, the Growth Acceleration Program. You mentioned Nem
earlier, and I remember in one of his interviews with a magazine
<https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2018/03/13/politica/1520947959_760179.html>,
I think it was Istoé, he said that the president who got the most
criminals off the streets was Lula, because during PAC, they lost 20
percent of their crooks who instead went to go work in PAC programs. In
other words, if you want to reduce violence, you shouldn’t hand out
weapons; you should hand out education, jobs, salaries, opportunities,
and hope.
*But did this actually work during your presidency? Because for many
people, the problem was that violence and crime increased during the PT
government. These problems were exactly what Bolsonaro exploited in his
rhetoric. Isn’t it true that the problems of …*
It did not increase during the PT government. During the PT government,
we enacted the greatest policies of social mobility in 500 years of
Brazilian history.
*But did crime increase or decrease?*
It decreased, definitely. It decreased. And there’s something one has to
take into account when discussing this in the context of Brazil. One
thing is being serious and keeping records of every case that happens,
and another thing is just making the crime rate look lower by hiding the
crimes. What we emphasized was greater transparency, with the goal of
avoiding the same old trend of poor people being the victims. When you
can guarantee that a young person will have a job, you know, then he
won’t have to steal someone’s cellphone or tennis shoes. He won’t have
to kill someone to steal their jacket. This is a no-brainer. When you
give a young person the opportunity to dream, to dream “I can have a
job, I can go to a technical school, I can go to university,” then this
young person will grab and hold on to such opportunities..
*I see what you mean.*
What kinds of dreams do they have today?
*I’d like to turn to discussing the political situation here in Brazil
and its relation to international politics, because the whole world is
interested in understanding Brazil after Bolsonaro took power. In 2015
in the U.S., it was unthinkable that Trump would win the elections, and
nobody believed it would happen, but he’s now president. The same thing
in the U.K. with Brexit. The same thing in Europe with nationalist and
far-right parties. A year ago in Brazil, nobody believed that Bolsonaro
would be elected. It was unthinkable, but he won. Now I know that you
believe that Bolsonaro’s victory was due to causes and factors unique to
Brazil, like the media’s attack on PT, but right now, can we see
Bolsonaro’s victory as part of a larger global pattern in the democratic
world of far-right parties overturning center-left parties?*
Well, as part of the democratic process in the whole word, shifts and
alternations in power are a normal pattern. This holds in the U.S., it
holds in Germany, and it holds in Brazil. In one election, the right
wins, in the next one the left wins, and in the next one …
*But the right-wing is gaining ground in many countries.*
Now, look: We had a very extraordinary period in Latin America. The
period with the most growth, the greatest distribution of wealth, and of
the most social inclusion in Latin America happened between 2000 and
2014 with the elections of [Cristina] Kirchner, [Ricardo] Lagos, Lula,
Evo Morales, [Hugo] Chavez, Rafael Correa — it was a golden age for
Latin America. We’re now in a far-right phase that’s failing in absurd
ways. Macri is a disaster for Argentina, and he was supposed to be the
answer. There’s this book …
*Why is this happening?*
Well, there’s this book by the Mozambican writer Mia Couto, with the
following phrase: “In times of terror, we choose monsters to protect
us.” Now, when you create hatred within a society
<https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/prisao-lula-odio-golpes/>, when you
create anti-political sentiment, when you take away any kind of hope in
people or in existing institutions, then, well, anything goes. I know
that Americans thought Trump had no chance. So why did he end up winning
the elections? It wasn’t with Putin’s help, as everyone’s saying. It was
because of the lies of fake news, just like here in Brazil.
*Was that the only reason?*
That’s not the only reason, it was because of unemployment, because of
despair, and because of this discourse of the shrinking the government,
which is always a concern in the air. You know what I mean? When Reagan
and Thatcher created so-called globalization, the fad in the 1980s was
to say that being modern was being globalized, and opening the economy
up to the whole world and letting capital transit freely — even though
people could not freely transit. Now that globalization has caused
problems for developed countries, above all for the U.S., Trump found an
easy line of discourse: “The U.S. is for Americans, and jobs are for
Americans.”
*Well, it’s not very well known that many people who voted for Obama in
2008 and 2012 then went on to vote for Trump in 2016. In Brazil, the
same thing happened: Many people who voted for you and then for Dilma
went on to vote for Bolsonaro. How do you explain this?*
Glenn, let me share something with you: I know Hillary Clinton pretty
well. It would have been very easy to find someone more popular than
her. She’s not an appealing personality. Trump’s victory was due to him
having the right kind of discourse for the white blue-collar workers,
you know, from the automobile industry, who were unemployed. He promised
the obvious: more jobs for Americans. He promised to fight the Chinese
to create more jobs, and this won him the elections. Now it’s obviously
possible that many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump, just like
many people who voted for Lula voted for Bolsonaro, especially since
Lula wasn’t running for office. If Obama was running, I don’t know if
Trump would have won. Concretely, I don’t know if, even in spite of the
extraordinary performance by [Fernando] Haddad — if I were to have run,
would the people have voted, would PT voters have elected Bolsonaro?
Concretely …
*I know people who voted for you, and then for Dilma, and then for
Bolsonaro.*
Well, maybe if I’d been a candidate, these people wouldn’t have voted
for Bolsonaro. Glenn, since you’re a journalist, you know what’s
happened in Brazil. First of all, Brazil has always had politics based
on a monolithic “conventional wisdom.” Fernando Henrique Cardoso had
eight years of conventional wisdown that was favorable to him, I had
eight years of conventional wisdom that was against me, and Dilma had
favorable conventional wisdom when the press tried to create a rift
between Dilma and Lula, but then that didn’t work out, so they were
against her. And as soon as the idea of impeachment came about, they
were 100 percent against her.
There was this climate of hatred running throughout society, trying to
blame PT for all of the misfortunes of Brazil, but when the elections
were on the horizon, there wasn’t a single viable right-wing candidate.
(I mean, normal right-wing, because as for Bolsonaro, he’s comparable to
Nero standing by while Rome burned down to the ground.) And in fact,
Bolsonaro’s been in office for five months and we’ve never heard the
words “growth,” “development,” “investment,” “job creation,”
“distribution of wealth” — these words have simply vanished from the
dictionary. The only thing you see is everyone making this gun gesture
with their fingers all the time, and this is actually the same shape
they used before to make an “L” for Lula. I guess Bolsonaro borrowed
this gesture from when it was used in my presidential campaigns. The
point is, our country is abandoned, everyone only speaks of budget cuts
and welfare reform, and promising the society …
*Abandoned by who? I mean, during your interview with El País, you
chalked up the rise of the global right to the failures of
neoliberalism. I’d like to know more about this issue of neoliberalism
failing here in Brazil and internationally as well. What’s the relation
between the population suffering and their sudden embrace of far-right
leaders like Bolsonaro and others throughout the democratic world?*
Neoliberalism, as it arose during the era of globalization, is losing
ground everywhere. It’s not just losing ground to the left, but also to
the right, as it lost to Hitler and to Mussolini. At the same time,
we’ve had two recent examples, in Spain and Portugal, of the left coming
back during the elections. And even in Germany, where Angela Merkel is a
very strong politician, if she hadn’t formed coalitions with the Social
Democrats, she wouldn’t be in power.
*But even there, the far-right is growing.*
I know, it’s growing the whole world over, and I think it’s a warning
call for the left, yes. But the right-wing won’t … you can be sure that
after Bolsonaro and Macri, Cristina [Fernández de Kirchner] will win the
next elections. You can be certain that if Evo Morales runs for
president, he’ll win in Bolivia, and that the same will happen in many
countries.
I hope that Americans will have the good sense to prevent another term
of Trump as president, because he’s not just a problem for the U.S.,
he’s a problem for the whole world. He has to learn that given the
importance of the U.S. on the international stage, he can’t make
impulsive decisions without reflecting on their global consequences. He
can’t threaten to wage war on everyone, threatening to attack all the
time. Enough is enough! We’ve had enough lies, like in Vietnam, like the
lies about Iraq, like the lies about Libya.
It’s time to stop this, you know, the world needs peace, the world needs
schools, the world needs more books, and not more weapons, the world
needs jobs. Sometimes I get really upset thinking about the G20 meeting
we had in London, the first one that Obama went to, where we reached
important decisions to deal with the 2008 financial crisis, and one of
the suggestions was that richer nations, in accord with the reduction in
their internal consumption, could enable financial means for poorer
countries to develop and to modernize, to buy newer machines, to have
greater access to technology and science. But this didn’t happen, and
protectionism is back.
*But Mr. President, it’s a common criticism, for PT as well, that while
you and Dilma have a reputation and a political past as left-wing, your
form of government was neoliberal, and there are a number of examples
which we’ve already discussed, **like the**increase in bank profits*
<https://theintercept.com/2018/09/27/mercado-lula-sistema-financeiro-pt/>*during
your presidency**. The same way that the Democratic Party in the U.S. is
financed by Wall Street and Silicon Valley, PT was financed by the
richest corporations in Brazil, such as **Odebrecht*
<https://theintercept.com/2017/04/18/fhc-e-lula-dois-investimentos-certeiros-da-odebrecht/>*,
OAS, JBS, and lots of banks. You implemented a welfare reform in 2004,
and Dilma implemented austerity in 2014 and went ahead with the
hydroelectric dam in Belo Monte that environmental and indigenous
activists were against, and you implemented tax cuts for the rich. If
you think that Bolsonaro’s victory was due to the failures caused by
neoliberalism, don’t you think that PT built it up?*
Oh, no, no. No, Glenn, I won’t answer your question before responding to
all of these things you’ve just said about PT and my government.
*I don’t want you to respond to those …*
It’s important to keep in mind that …
*It’s a common criticism, that’s why I’m asking.*
During my presidency, I never said that my government was socialist.
First of all, when you win an election, you have to figure out the
relations between the forces that you’ll have on your side in order to
implement political decisions. It’s important to remember, Glenn, that
when I was elected president of the republic with a parliament of 513
representatives, I had 91 representatives from my party. Collor and
Bolsonaro, they had 50. He’s going to need, much more than I did, to
construct allegiances with forces who will be amenable to approving what
he wants. There’s no point in his talking of “old politics” when he’s
the old politician himself! He’s been in office for 28 years. He’s the
old politician, and I’m the new one. I had only been a representative
for four years, and I didn’t want to be a representative anymore, and he
was one for 28 years. So enough of this “old politics” nonsense. And if
you want to run a country, you have to work with what you have!
I ran the country that I happened to be in. I wasn’t running France, or
Germany or the U.S., I was running Brazil. And when I arrived in office,
there were 54 million people dying of hunger, who couldn’t afford to eat
breakfast, and I pledged that by the end of my term, every person in
Brazilian would have breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I didn’t get the
chance to go to college, but I made it my duty to see to it that, since
I didn’t have the chance go to college, the workers would. For all these
reasons, even though I’m the only president without a college degree, I
wouldn’t switch places with many people who have one, you know? I’m the
president who sent the highest number of students to university, who
opened the most public universities, who launched the most technical
schools in the history of the country, who had the largest policies of
distribution of wealth, who raised the minimum wage the most, and who
helped the most in settling the landless.
*So how do you explain the suffering that people felt that brought
Bolsonaro to office, after 14 years of PT in power?*
Why did I do all those things that I just mentioned? Because I
understand that if one wants to solve the problems of Brazil, we have to
use the word “people.” We have to look at people and see human beings
instead of just seeing numbers or debt figures. Do you want to reduce
the government debt in Brazil? Grow the economy. Do you want to reduce
the welfare debt? Create jobs. Why was the welfare at a surplus in 2014?
Because we created 20 million jobs with regularized work contracts, and
because we legally approved six million individual microenterprises. We
got the economy functioning. Just talking about cuts, cuts, cuts won’t
hack it; one needs to speak of growth, development, and look toward
people, not toward the banks. Come on, what kind of growth can our
country expect with a president who goes around saluting the American flag?
*No, what I’m trying to ask is why you blame the rise of Bolsonaro and
other extremists on neoliberalist ideologies. I’m trying to understand
the difference in how you ran the country, how Dilma ran the country,
and those ideologies. What differences do you see?*
Glenn, when we started this interview, I said clearly that PT’s biggest
problems come not from its errors, but its successes. Every time that a
president tries to enact socially-minded policies in Latin America,
they’re eventually ousted. The elite in Brazil and in other countries
don’t accept economic development policies that contain social
inclusion. PT managed to enact — and this is according to the U.N., not
me — the greatest changes in social inclusion in the history of this
country. It’s important to remember that during our mandate, it was the
only time in history that the poor had a higher rate of economic upturn
than the rich. The rich made gains too, but the poor at an even greater
percentage. It was the only time in history, and this bothered people.
You should have heard it in the Rio de Janeiro airport, in the São Paulo
airport, when people said, “This airport is beginning to look like a bus
station, with these poor people all around, people who have never taken
a plane in their life.”
*Yeah, so why is there so much anger in this country, leading to
Bolsonaro’s election?*
Well now, you’re giving me the opportunity to explain to the Brazilian
people what happened. Let’s take the case of Bolsonaro. He had 39
percent of the total votes, not of those who went to the polls, but 39
percent of the total.
*In the first round?*
No, in the second round runoff. If you do the math, he had 57 percent of
the votes of people who picked a candidate, but only 39 percent of the
total number of voters.
*But he won by a large margin.*
It was a third, but yes, he won. He won the elections, but the majority
of the people did not vote for him. But why did anyone vote for him?
They voted for him because of that phrase I said earlier: “In times of
terror, many people choose a monster to protect them.” So there were
people who preferred to believe in a lie called Bolsonaro, in a man who
preached hate, who preached violence, in a man who hates black people,
who hates gay people, who hates poor people, in a man who said that
killing was the answer, yes, they voted for him. Why? Because the
opposition was PT, and PT had been demonized.
Who knows, Glenn, you know that when they ask me, I say that maybe God
didn’t want me to win the elections back in 1989. Why? I lost in 1989, I
lost in 1994, I lost in 1998, and I never got angry, nobody ever saw me
infuriated about losing. I went back home and got ready for the next
election. The hatred all started with Dilma’s victory in 2014 — no,
actually with the demonstrations in 2013, and came to a head when Aécio
lost, and then rants against Dilma began, and the hatred, the hatred …
*They couldn’t accept this loss. But I want to ask you something
important, because you just said that PT was demonized and talked about
the hatred of PT. And there’s a common criticism that I often hear about
your strategy in 2018, which is that you did everything possible to
weaken the candidacy of Ciro Gomes of the center-left, who many think
had a better chance of beating Bolsonaro than the candidate who you
chose from your party, Fernando Haddad.*
*Because of the hate and loathing of PT in Brazil, because Haddad was
unknown outside of São Paulo. And now this is for the international
audience: In the first runoff, Haddad ended up in second place, while in
the second runoff, Bolsonaro defeated your PT candidate by a huge
margin. The critics say that you preferred to lose to Bolsonaro and
maintain control over the left with PT, than to have a better chance of
beating Bolsonaro if it meant letting another party, namely Ciro’s,
represent the left. Is this a valid criticism?*
Do you believe this?
*Well, I’m asking what you think.*
I’m asking if you believe this, you know why?
*I’ll tell you what I know. I know that the candidate who you endorsed
so that he could make it to the second round ended up losing by a large
margin to Bolsonaro, and I’m asking whether this was the right strategy. *
I’ll try to explain. My main strategy, my most basic strategy, goes back
to 1989. In 1989, [Leonel] Brizola, who I remember fondly, thought he
would win the elections. Brizola came back from exile ready to be
president, but I was the one who went to the second round runoff. Did
you know Brizola asked me to give up, so that he and I could support
Mario Covas instead? So I said, “Brizola, if the people wanted to elect
Mario Covas, they would have voted for him, so why didn’t they? How
would I look for the voters who wanted me in office? Should I give up to
support Mario Covas who is way behind?” Really, if the people wanted
Ciro to win the second round runoff, why didn’t they vote for him in the
first round?
*Because you endorsed Haddad and not Ciro, and because your party also
blocked his alliance with the PSB [the Brazilian Socialist Party], and
gave up a possible candidacy for the governor of Pernambuco all to help
the PT candidate. You’ve heard all these criticisms.*
Come on, does Ciro really complain because PT had the political means to
bring in PCdoB [the Communist Party of Brazil] and PSB [the Brazilian
Socialist Party]? What did he want PT to do? Nothing? He wanted PT to
talk to PSB, because …
*You were the one who said that PT was demonized, was always under attack …*
Listen, let me tell you something. Ciro’s gotten learn something, this
is important in politics, and if you ever want to go into politics, then
learn this: If you want someone to like you, then you’ve gotta learn to
like them back. If you want someone to respect you, then you’ve got to
respect people. So if Ciro really wanted PT’s support, he could have
come and discussed things with PT. I’m gonna tell you a story that you
might not know, that nobody’s ever told, and that Ciro never told
anyone. There was a time that Mangabeira Unger came to my office and
said, “Me, Haddad, and Ciro had a meeting, and we agreed that Haddad
would be Ciro’s vice president.” And I said, “Mangabeira, don’t you
think you should’ve discussed this with PT first?” What do you think?
Mangabeira, and now this is back in 1994, I was at a dinner at his house
in Boston with him, with the beloved Marco Aurelio Garcia, with his
beloved wife, and he says to me, “Brizola’s gonna win the election.” I
had over 20 percent of the votes, and Brizola had none, and he says,
“Brizola’s gonna win.” So I said, “Why do you think so, Mangabeira?” And
he says, “Because as soon as Leonel Brizola gets in front of the
cameras, all of the workers will vote for him!” And I said, “Mangabeira,
you must be out of it, this isn’t gonna happen.” Well, the elections
came, and I don’t know if you remember what happened that year. They
banned the use of outside images, and only allowed candidates to speak
directly in front of the camera. So how many votes did Brizola get? He
lost to Enéas Carneiro. I ran again in 1994 and had 27 percent of the
votes, but there was no second round. Ciro went to the elections, and
didn’t run — no, he did, and he got 11 percent of the votes. He then ran
again in 2002, and got 11 percent or 12 percent, and last year he ran
again. So I lost four times before winning, and Ciro has already lost
three times, maybe he’ll have to lose once more. If Ciro wants to make
alliances, he has to learn to have conversations, he has to learn how to
convince people, and he has to assume certain programmatic commitments.
*Well, Ciro will definitely hear this interview.*
I think Ciro knows what kind of relationship I have with him. I’ve
always had a great deal of respect for him, and I thank Ciro for working
with me in my government, and I’ll tell you something else: I thought
Ciro shouldn’t have even run for the House of Representatives, because I
invited him instead to be the president of BNDES [the Brazilian
Development Bank].
*Well, this is exactly the reason that he thought he had a better chance
than the candidate that you endorsed in the second round runoff. But
anyway, I want to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about the
challenges that the left faces internationally, because it’s really
important, and you are one of the few great leaders of the left in the
past twenty years, who managed to win national elections in a huge
nation and to reach out to the most destitute and marginalized.*
*I think it’s really important to hear what you think of the problems
that the left is facing worldwide, because in the majority of countries
in the democratic world, including Brazil, the left is facing great
difficulties in attracting support from lower socioeconomic classes, but
at the same time is seeing increased support for higher classes, people
with higher education, and university degrees. So I want to ask, what’s
needed in order for the Brazilian left and the left worldwide to be able
to reconnect with the people, as you were able to do? *
Listen, during the economic crisis in 2008, I discovered that the world
was lacking leadership. I went to meetings with the 20 main leaders of
the world, and I realized that nobody knew what to do. I was worried,
for example, about the EU, because the EU had become very bureaucratic,
and it was no longer the politicians who spoke, it was the bureacrats,
it was this committe and that commission, and everything was a committee
or commission without the politicians deciding anything. I thought this
was pretty bad, you know.
And in the U.S., Obama also had no way out. I remember calling up Obama
during the automobile industry crisis and telling him my plans with the
BNDES, with the Bank of Brazil, with the Caixa Economica — with three
public banks that enabled us to kickstart economic growth in Brazil and
prevent the crisis from strangling us. Obama regretted that in the U.S.
there was no way to have such bank involvement, but there were ways to
create development banks. Anyway, here’s what I think the left has to
do: First, the left needs, you know … there are left-wing parties with
100 years of experience, with 150 years of experience, with 80 years,
and PT has 40 years of experience, and I think PT has had a very
successful experience.
Now, some folks have said that PT has gotten too far removed from the
people. Listen, I would say that PT needs to take a step back but not to
its origins — because you don’t govern for the sake of a party, you
govern for the sake of the whole society. When you win an election, you
have to govern for the sake of everyone, and of course you can choose
who you want to focus on serving more or less, but you have to govern
for the sake of everyone, you have to respect everyone, you have to like
everyone, you have to serve everyone, and this was how I did things. I
doubt, Glenn, that you’ll find any other country, during my presidency,
I doubt you’ll find a mayor, a governor, or a representative from an
opposition party who had anything bad to say about my government,
because we treated everyone with decency.
*I agree, and you left office with an 86 percent approval rate, and one
of the most important aspects, in my opinion, of your political appeal
was your childhood and background: that you came from poverty, that you
only learned to read at age 10, and that you were a laborer at age 16,
like millions of other Brazilians. I want to know whether you think it’s
important for left-wing parties to be represented by people who learned
about poverty not only in theory while in college, but who grew up in
poverty themselves and, therefore, have that experience in their bones
and can speak with credibility to the people about poverty and about
their experience. Do you think that the Brazilian left, or the left
internationally, can manage to do this the way you did?*
Well, I think the left hasmany peoplewho have studied very hard
<https://theintercept.com/2018/10/02/noam-chomsky-visita-lula/>and who
are serious intellectuals who can achieve this. What we need is …
*But is that the same has having experienced it?*
What’s really needed is to be committed to these causes. There’s no way
to govern a country if … Do you remember my attitude when I won the
election? Do you remember that I put every minister on a plane and took
them all to the four most destitute places in Brazil? Why did I do that,
anyway? I wanted [Henrique] Meirelles, a banker, and [Antonio] Palocci,
a doctor, and [Luiz] Furlan, a businessman — I wanted them to see a
stilt house above a swamp up close, I wanted them to see a man and woman
having to defecate in the same room they eat in, I wanted them to see
the vast number of young girls with two or three kids and no dad around,
I wanted them to see the poverty of Jequitinhonha Valley, I wanted them
to see the real world as it is, not just the world as it is in Brasilia.
What the left needs is this kind of commitment.
You’re not going to manage to govern if you can’t define which part of
the population it’s your priority to serve. So I might like everyone, I
might like Glenn, I might like Lula, I might like anyone, but I have to
choose. Does Glenn manage to eat three meals a day? Does Glenn have
access to education? Does Glenn own a car? Well, then Glenn isn’t my
priority. The priority are those who are downtrodden, who don’t have
what Glenn has, but who need to.
*But to make this happen, do you think it’s important to have candidates
coming from these neighborhoods that have real poverty and that don’t
seem overly academic?*
No, what we have to do is prepare ourselves. I prefer that we find
candidates who come from backgrounds with popular struggles in their
blood, in their veins, but obviously there are many good people out
there, not necessarily from poor backgrounds, who are committed to the
cause of the poor.
*But most important is having the candidates. Do you think this is
what’s missing in Brazil?*
Definitely. This is why the party … I think what’s missing is more
people being involved, more women, more black people, more Indigenous
people.
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20190522/30e2ee59/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list