Lula’s “Ministry of Truth” begins work with opposition resistance

The National Prosecutor’s Office of the Union for the Defense of Democracy (PNDD), a body of the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) that has been called the “Ministry of Truth”, will have its first meeting this Tuesday (28). Created by the Lula government with the alleged objective of acting “to respond to and confront misinformation about public policies”, the new body raises fears of censorship against opponents.

The working group convened by the government, made up of members of civil society and government, should use this Tuesday’s meeting to draw up a work schedule and establish the attributions of each member. The team is made up of 11 academics whose link with the left is evident in most cases, in addition to representatives of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB), the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the National Council of the Public Ministry (CNMP) and entities representing the media.

In recent weeks, opposition parliamentarians have been divided over their attitude towards the new body. There is unanimity in the concern with the threat to freedom of expression, but some maintain the hope of dialogue with the government or of barring the prosecution through the legislative route, while others show skepticism with both alternatives.

Senator Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE) says that he considers the creation of the PNDD “a way of trying to intimidate and monitor opinion in Brazil”. However, he believes that there has been a retreat from the government in recent weeks, and is less pessimistic after the AGU contacted him and other parliamentarians, such as federal deputy Bia Kicis (PL-DF), with the interest of hearing from him. them.

According to the senator, pressure from society and Congress made the government retreat from the content of the proposal made in January. “They confirmed that they were reassessing, that they wanted to set up a working group and that they wanted to hear from us. I thought that was cool. I hope it will be effective, because dialogue is the way forward,” he observes.

Bia confirms that she was also contacted by an AGU parliamentary advisor and approves of the agency’s attitude, but maintains her criticism. “This does not change the fact that this office is absurdly illegal, it is not provided for in the law. We understand that all the movements that have been made today to want to characterize the defense of democracy, in fact, have been opposed to the sense of true democracy. What they want is to censor, curb dissonant voices, so the purpose of creating this attorney’s office is already clear. We are against it, but we are always open to good institutional relationships”, says the deputy.

In addition to Girão, several parliamentarians filed draft legislative decrees (PDLs) against the creation of the PNDD. Senator Sergio Moro (União-PR) and deputies Mendonça Filho (União-PE), Caroline de Toni (PL-SC), Chris Tonietto (PL-RJ), Kim Kataguiri (União-SP) and Adriana Ventura (Novo- SP) are on that list.

Mendonça Filho was also contacted by the AGU, but evaluates the measure with little optimism. He says he is willing to talk, but does not accept concessions. The deputy puts his chips in the legislative path and wants to block the new attorney’s office.

“I have felt the manifestation of important voices [no Congresso] worried about this advance over our freedoms”, she says. “I sincerely believe that there will be a range of relevant political figures within parliament putting pressure on the leaders, so that we can, first, collect the necessary signatures for an urgent request, which is the next step, and guide the approval of the request, to that the project can go straight to the agenda of the Federal Chamber and, thus, President Arthur Lira can guide this matter”.

For this, however, the deputy sees as fundamental the pressure exerted by civil society, the media and also the academic environment, especially in the legal field. “Like everything that happens inside parliament, this will depend on the repercussions and reverberations in the extra-congress environment”, he says.

For deputy Adriana Ventura, the mobilization of opposition congressmen needs to be greater. “Some parliamentarians have mobilized, and there is a certain unity. But, in my view, it is still small compared to what is happening. And we also need to think about making an impact outside Congress. After all, regardless of political ideology, this type of backlash can never, ever happen,” she emphasizes.

One difficulty for the approval of the agenda, in her view, is the tendency of the Lula government to “malicious handling of democracy”. “Let’s remember that Lula’s history as president was marked by the monthly allowance, by buying parliamentarians, and we saw that in the beginning there were several scandals”, he says, referring to the PT’s new attempts to buy votes in parliament.

Deputy Kim Kataguiri (União-SP) is even more skeptical about Congress’ willingness to discuss the matter. For him, “there is no chance of approval”, since the government has a “very strong power of co-option”. He also accuses Bolsonaro supporters in Congress of being “a divisive force” that will represent a barrier to joining forces against the “Ministry of Truth”.

“Ministério da Verdade” does the opposite of what it claims to do, say lawmakers

The working group that starts the activities of the National Attorney for the Defense of Democracy this Tuesday will have the objective of preparing a draft regulation to be made available on the AGU portal for public consultation. Subsequently, the document is sent for evaluation by the Attorney General of the Union, Jorge Messias.

In January, the AGU stated that “under no circumstances” will it use the prosecution to restrict opinions and criticism or act “contrary to the public freedoms enshrined in the Constitution”. Opposition parliamentarians, however, consider the very creation of the body unconstitutional and undemocratic.

“This body with that beautiful name will do the opposite of what it proposes. It will not defend democracy. To defend democracy, we already have the Constitution, which, incidentally, is not being enforced”, comments Adriana Ventura.

Mendonça Filho points out that some concepts that underlie the foundation of the body, such as “disinformation”, do not have a definition in the Brazilian political and legal system, which opens up space for authoritarian initiatives.

“It is an institutional dysfunction, contrary to the Brazilian institutional framework. It is not up to the Executive Branch, through an arm that defends the Union in court, such as the Attorney General’s Office, to judge or determine what is a democratic or anti-democratic act. It is up to anyone who feels offended to prosecute anyone who is going beyond the limits of legality, or to the Public Ministry, which, eventually, as a supervisor of the law, can charge someone with the commission of a crime”, he comments.

For Kataguiri, the creation of the “Ministry of Truth” is an attack on democracy. “To the extent that such power is given to the government, it becomes responsible for defining what is true and what is a lie. This competence is typical of authoritarian regimes. Civil society is being suffocated by the government, and people start to have fear of expressing criticism”, he observes.

The deputy also criticizes the omission of part of the press in relation to Lula’s offensive against freedom of expression. “Let’s be frank: sectors of the mainstream press supported Lula’s election. In part this was because of Bolsonarist horror, but in part it is ideological affinity. There is, in sectors of the mainstream press, a presumption that everything that comes from the Lula’s government is good, and everything that comes from the right is bad. It is clear that if the government tightens censorship, the press can change”, he says.

Adriana Ventura also considers that “the press is very silent”. “They are not understanding the seriousness. This ‘Ministry of Truth’ that they are wanting to set up can silence the press once and for all”, evaluates the deputy, who fears the use of the body to control the media, popular demobilization and prior censorship .