By RONALD VIZZONI GARCIA*
The three ministries most directly linked to human rights continue to be secondary actors in the Esplanade of Ministries. When they gain attention, it is not for what they do best.
The crisis in the Ministry of Human Rights, with the departure of Silvio Almeida, is a situation that demands attention. We can extract from it interpretations about how human rights activists and social movements reacted, as well as about the situation of the three ministerial portfolios related to the issue. To do so, first, we will understand the reactions in society, which was divided between supporting the narrative of one or another leader in the same field. Then, we will discuss the decision-making regarding the crisis. And, finally, we will talk about the current condition of the ministerial portfolios related to the issue.
The prevailing feeling among many human rights groups is one of surprise, if not bewilderment. Faced with uncertainty, people begin to form their own assumptions. It is to be expected that long-time activists in social movements, often accustomed to being portrayed pejoratively by the corporate media, would be reluctant to “abandon a comrade” to the mercy of cancellation.
The first reaction was to doubt the sources (coup-supporting media), to question their intentions: a pact of whiteness; “he opposes the privatization of prisons; foreign NGOs” and so on. In addition, for some time now, several social movements have been insisting on the importance of “race” and “gender” in the appointment of people to important positions. The appointment of black ministers to the Supreme Court is the high point of this demand. Apart from the radical material and symbolic disparity, there is nothing that positively justifies the cut of gender and race in elite positions.
“Pragmatic decisions” “without considering” race and gender only reinforce the current structures and values. When there are already people qualified for the same positions, with the simple difference of not being born white men, the “urgency” of the immediate political calculation tends to favor the given social, symbolic and political structure. Change is a deliberate choice. For it to persist, it must have support in society, which translates into votes.
How can we deny the differential treatment given to ministers on whom the government depends, such as, for example, Juscelino Filho (Communications), indicted by the Federal Police in 2024 for fraud in public bidding and criminal organization? Or the lack of political alignment of the Minister of Agriculture, Carlos Fávaro, who openly defended the Temporal Framework, while the government and the STF moved in the opposite direction?
The government itself chose to leave aside the issue of those killed and disappeared during the dictatorship, yet another of the many gestures of goodwill towards the military. This point was even taken up by Silvio Almeida in a line of action that was opposite to that of the government. It is not about creating a ranking of “more acceptable” transgressions or equating lack of political alignment with the commission of crimes. The point is: the calculation differs, whether by person, portfolio or means of political support.
A false dilemma is that the mere presence of black men and women entails greater moral obligations than those of others in leadership positions. There is no meritocratic argument that explains the whitening of elite positions. This argument alone is enough to make us reconsider the selection processes for these positions. It does not mean that upwardly mobile “non-whites” have to be “saints” with a higher or lower level of demand than others.
There is certainly more sadness in social movements regarding the allegations against Silvio Almeida than against Juscelino Filho. Expectations were different. So was disappointment. These high expectations also apply to Anielle Franco, who heads the Secretariat for Racial Equality. It is a heartbreaking situation for those who believe they have suffered violence and, on another level, for those who need to understand what is happening.
In a second moment of reflection, we can remember that the person in question was already showing signs that pointed to this outcome, and we were the ones who did not want to accept it. The note from the Black Coalition for Rights offers a good example of this reading of the situation: “Behind the scenes of the black movement, however, for some time now, he has been viewed with reservations by several leaders.”
It highlights, in particular, “the murder of João Alberto Freitas, inside a Carrefour supermarket in Porto Alegre, in November 2020” (…) “While voices from the black movement publicly mourned their loss, Silvio Almeida agreed to take over the leadership of Carrefour’s Diversity Committee”. This was before he became a minister. The note also cites the report published by the magazine Veja of students who allegedly suffered sexual harassment at a private college in São Paulo.
Unfortunately, prejudices and positions are made in a more or less emotional and direct manner. We never start from scratch, but from inclinations already present in our minds. There is no point in asking for calm in favor of the presumption of innocence and due process. The time in politics, accelerated by social media, is one of “very obvious” conclusions, which divide “the good” from “the bad”. Regardless of the legal outcome in a few months or years, the impact of the facts (true or not) is already a reality in the political world. It is not based on the production of evidence in a legal process that political decisions are made about this case.
There is no magic formula that transforms right-wing or left-wing people into morally superior people, beforehand. It is practical actions that will define what is dark, or not, in the conduct of each one of us. The public rejection of sexist, racist and xenophobic values is a good start (for the right, center and left), but it can also serve as a public facade to act differently in private.
This is what many companies do in relation to the environment; how they treat their employees and the populations affected by their activities. Something similar can happen in governments, especially since their composition is never monolithic. There are always leaders and groups competing for more resources, more power and visibility. This is positive, because in these disputes, the “excesses” and “sins” of the different sides end up emerging, regardless of the government.
The victims' pain is real and should not be underestimated. We express our full solidarity and commitment to them. In turn, the veracity of the facts, whether premeditated or not, does not change the political calculation. This is a time of economic improvement, a political eclipse of the Bolsonarist September 7th, and a weakening of Congress due to the municipal elections.
The crisis is an anticipation of the ministerial reform planned for after the elections, which could “help” reposition the government in relation to its parliamentary base, not to mention the succession of presidencies in Congress. The former minister did not have much to offer in this area, nor is the position the target of great covetousness. Silvio Almeida maintained a certain independence from parties and automatic alignments, typical of an intellectual who values biography and the ethics of conviction more than the ethics of political responsibility.
Turning to ministries/secretariats, there is a paradox in public policies on human rights. Since it is a cross-cutting agenda, which involves public policies from several ministries, much can be done for this issue without necessarily advancing specific policies. The Lula government has been improving the social conditions of the population and has shown itself to be more “civilized” than the previous one (to say the least) in its positions on the effectiveness of rights.
The more specific ministries (Women, Racial Equality and Human Rights) work with smaller budgets, tend to form alliances among themselves and “raise awareness” among other ministries about their agendas (matricality). They develop more specific public policies for important audiences. In addition to this general scenario, there is the poor image left by her predecessor. She knew how to use her position to gain visibility, often promoting fake news and absurd policies. The impression was that anyone could be Minister of Human Rights and say any banality (girls in pink, boys in blue), depending on the government that took over.
The three ministries most directly linked to human rights continue to be secondary players in the Esplanade of Ministries. When they gain great repercussion, it is not for what they do best. A regrettable fact. Human rights continue to be a challenge to the “weak reformism” of the Lula 3 government.
The human rights agenda is made up of commitments to civilization, the protection of individuals and the effectiveness of rights. It represents a pact for a better society, in which each person can expand their potential, without prejudice to diversity and minority groups. There is much to be done, and we can start by choosing who to trust and the reasons for doing so. May change bring new perspectives!
*Ronald Vizzoni Garcia holds a PhD in political science from the University Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro (IUPERJ/UCAM).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
