Barroso’s speech at the UNE focuses on democracy and dictatorship – 07/23/2023 – Politics

Mentions of dictatorship and democracy were central elements in the speech of STF (Federal Supreme Court) Minister Luís Roberto Barroso at the UNE (National Union of Students) Congress, when he made statements about Bolsonarism that generated great distress to the magistrate, in addition to a request for impeachment.

Among the declarations on the 12th, the phrase “we defeated Bolsonarism” was the one that generated the most negative repercussions, prompting a note of clarification by the STF and another by the minister himself.

The term Bolsonarism appears twice in the five-minute speech. The word democracy is mentioned seven times and dictatorship six.

On Wednesday (19), the opposition filed a request for Barroso’s impeachment in the Senate, based on an item in the law that prohibits the exercise of party-political activity by ministers of the Supreme Court.

Experts consulted by Sheet commented on the speech. Despite evaluating, in general, the speech about Bolsonarism as inappropriate, they do not consider that it constitutes a crime of responsibility.

At the beginning of his speech, Barroso seeks to counter criticism coming from a group of students who protested his presence with shouts and boos.

Some of them held signs and a banner accusing the minister of being “an enemy of nursing and the organizer of the 2016 coup”, in reference to when Barroso suspended the minimum value for the category and his position in the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff.

“Nothing that’s happening here is strange to me. I’ve already faced the dictatorship and I’ve already faced Bolsonarism and I’m not worried”, he says. [o protesto]”.

The phrase that had the most repercussions came at the end of the speech: “I leave here with energy renewed by agreement and disagreement. Because this is the democracy that we conquered. We defeated censorship, we defeated torture, we defeated Bolsonarism to allow democracy and the free manifestation of all people”.

Heloisa Câmara, who is a professor at UFPR (Federal University of Paraná) and has a doctorate in State law, points out that the very fact that two notes were released by the STF to clarify a sentence of so few words is already indicative of its inadequacy. For her, one of the notes sought to treat the term of use “us” and the other the word “bolsonarismo”.

The first official note released was on behalf of the court. In it, it was stated that Barroso’s speech “referred to the popular vote and not to the performance of any institution”. The statement on behalf of the minister said that he did not want to offend Bolsonaro voters and that he was referring to “coup-mongering extremism”.

Despite being inappropriate, Heloisa considers that the speech does not violate the rule that prohibits party-political activity. “It seems to me that it would be a very expansive interpretation and therefore very worrying that it would lead to a consequence like this [de impeachment ou suspeição]”, it says.

She considers that the main debate to be had is, more broadly, about the type of event that STF ministers commonly participate in, in addition to an excess of manifestation on current political issues.

Despite also seeing problems in speech, as he considers that it harms the reputation of the court, the professor at FGV Direito SP and coordinator of the Supremo em Pauta research group, Rubens Glezer, does not consider it a crime of responsibility.

“It seems to me a mistake to say that this is cause for impeachment”, he says. “Party-political activity means that the greatest meaning, the explanation, for an agent’s actions is the alignment with a specific party policy.”

For André Marsiglia, a constitutionalist lawyer specializing in freedom of expression, Barroso’s speech about Bolsonarism is unethical, but does not violate the legal indications that prevent judges from exercising party-political activities. “What the law prohibits is that he joins a party, it does not prohibit him from expressing his political preferences”, he says.

He assesses, however, that Barroso should no longer participate in trials linked to Bolsonarism.

Ivar Hartmann, professor at Insper and doctor in public law, who had Barroso on his doctoral committee, says that the speech would not be incompatible with what is expected of a Supreme Court minister committed to the preservation of democracy.

This is because, he says, the speech makes it clear that it is not referring to specific people, such as Jair Bolsonaro and his family members, but to a movement, which he credits as illegitimate and an attack on democracy.

According to Hartmann, the phrase would not be atypical either, because, in practice, it has been common for Supreme Court ministers to express themselves on issues that they will judge. “We could discuss whether this should be normalized or not, but it was normalized. So, certainly, Barroso is not doing anything unusual for a Supreme Minister.”

Another point in the speech that could be criticized was when Barroso stated: “I was the one who got the money from nursing”.

Despite not seeing any violation, Heloisa Câmara considers Barroso’s statement inappropriate. “The mention brings a certain confusion of functions of what is the role of the judge.”

According to Marsiglia, the speech is inappropriate because it clearly does not concern a personal point of view, but his role as a politician. “It is not ethical because conducting his vote is a technical conduct, it should not be used on a platform or implying that it is a benefit or something to please the public”, he says.

---

Read Barroso’s speech at the UNE:

“Nothing that is happening here is strange to me. I’ve already faced the dictatorship and I’ve already faced Bolsonarism, and I’m not worried…

And, more than that, I was the one who got the nursing money because I didn’t have the money. So that, after all, it is unfair. And I’m not afraid of boos because we have a country to build.

I come from the belief that in 1964 there was a coup d’état, because the president was removed by a mechanism that was not in the Constitution, and there was a dictatorship.

Because only a dictatorship that closes Congress, only a dictatorship that revokes mandates, only a dictatorship that creates censorship, only a dictatorship that has political prisoners.

We’ve come a long way for people to be able to speak up any way they want. We live democracy in Brazil. And being here is rediscovering my own past of facing authoritarianism, intolerance and people who scream instead of listening, people who curse instead of putting arguments on the table.

This is Bolsonarism: people who have no argument, who scream. Those who have an argument, those who are right, those who have history on their side put arguments on the table. Don’t curse and don’t scream. This is the recent past that we are trying to get rid of.

I want to tell everyone that sometimes the fights seem invincible. When I entered college, we had dictatorship, we had torture and we managed to work for democracy, we managed to work for broad, general and unrestricted amnesty when I was still in the student movement. We managed to work for the 1988 Constitution and now, more recently, we managed to resist a coup d’état that was on the way.

And, therefore, we are committed to history, to the plural and possible truth and to the obligation to make a bigger and better country. And a better and bigger country is made with democracy, with study, with arguments and with the ability to have dialogue and show that we are on the right side of history. And the right side of the story is democracy and respect for human dignity, which means treating everyone with respect and consideration even in disagreement.

So I thank you immensely for inviting me to be here.

And I continue to live for my youthful dreams, which is to face poverty, to face the abysmal inequality that exists in this country. And being able to build democratic arguments in favor of goodness and justice, against shouting, against intolerance, against those who are not capable of listening and arguing.

So, people like you, people who are committed to Brazil, people who want to defeat hatred, who want to defeat conspiracy theories, people who are capable of listening and speaking because we have reason on our side, it’s people like that who change history.

So I wanted to say hello to UNE, I wanted to say hello to the students’ spirit of resistance. And, above all, the commitment to confronting poverty, combating inequalities, combating racism.

I want to say that I am from the State University of Rio de Janeiro, a pioneer in the policy of racial quotas in Brazil. We are creating a new future and tackling racial inequality.

So I leave here with energy renewed by agreement and disagreement. Because that’s the democracy we conquered. We defeated censorship, we defeated torture, we defeated Bolsonarism to allow democracy and the free manifestation of all people.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for allowing me this reunion with my own youth and with the past of which I am proud and the commitment that I keep to this day, which is to make a better and bigger country. For Brazil!”