The risks of politicization of social practices of public concern

       Below I comment on an open-letter from the National (Brazilian) Agroecology Articulation - ANA, which reinforces my concern with the ideological rhetoric and active partisanship that are giving a "leftist" colour to social practices that affect the whole society, and should not serve as a "fight" flag for any political group.
       In fact, I was already pointing this
political-partisan "rigging" of agroecology and urban agriculture since the end of last year, in this text Urban Agriculture: social practice or "movement"?
      
I think that ANA should not take a side in this political dispute, because any government must be our partner  in fostering the social practices we need so much.
Automatically translated by Google
Leia o texto original



Agro-ecological Movement Against the Coup and in Defense of Democracy
The National Agroecology Articulation (ANA), formed by civil society organizations and social movements with long history of struggles for democracy, vehemently repudiates the putschist attacks against the democratically elected government of President Dilma Rousseff.
  1. ANA adopts the same fallacious discourse of Partido dos Trabalhadores - PT (the Workers' Party) stating that the process of impeachment is a "golpe" (a coup d'etat). It is not, since it is foreseen in the Constitution for offenses far less disastrous than those committed by Dilma Rousseff.
  2. When calling a legitimate process of "coup", the PT and its allies, such as ANA, lead the political situation for radicalization, because, if it is indeed a "coup", then is the case of the population to react with weapons in hand...

    The ongoing impeachment process in Congress is headed by opposition party parliamentarians in alliance with members of the judiciary who do not accept defeat at the polls and act as spokespeople of big corporations in the industrial financial sector, trade and media.

  3. Certainly - and of course - the process is led by opposition lawmakers.
  4. But ANA is inventing when stating that they are "in alliance with characters of the judiciary." Who they are? When? How?
  5. And why does ANA say that? Because the judiciary has not accepted the PT's arguments in defense of Lula, Dilma and the party itself. It is not ethical or Republican an organization to claim against justice for not contemplating its interests.

    It is, above all, a coup of the bosses against the rights hard-won by the struggles of the Brazilian working class.

  6. The truth is that after two years of - 4% per annum recession (after a year where we had grown 0% - in 2014), and facing the basic interest rate of 14.25% per year and inflation nearing 10 % per year, employers are closing their businesses and laying off employees. How jobs will be there if the industries and shops are closing? Only if we all turn to be civil servants (the eternal dream of the leftists).
  7. And of course, to recover the economy after the PT catastrophe, it will require sacrifices from everyone, especially the middle classes, (unfortunately), since they form the majority of the population.
    We should have thought better when we elect Lula in 2002, delighted with their demagogic promises.


    This reactionary offensive has fueled a hate culture, even able to systematically rely on sexist speeches attempting to disqualify President Dilma.

  8. The reactionary offensive grew when growing parts of society realized (remember the huge street demonstrations of June 2013), that PT governments were leading us to economic disaster and ethical demoralization..
  9. Remember that when Lula was elected, the society received him with sympathy and hope. Were his megalomania and successive scandals in the federal government that fueled the increasing reaction against everything that remembers "leftism" in Brazil today.
  10. The PT complains that it is the object of "hate" from its opponents, but this is not hate, but just disgust, rejection, revulsion, anger, repugnance, because of the mistakes and crimes committed by the party, unable to make a self-criticism. They prefer to say that it is "hate" to try to arouse sympathy in society, but it is not working....
  11. ANA insinuate that there is a "sexist", chauvinist, element in the criticism of President Dilma is to appeal to much to ignorance.
  12. So ANA thinks that if a man had committed the same irresponsibility in the country driving, he would not be criticized and have not his impeachment processed by the Congress?
  13. Or, otherwise, if Rousseff had done a good government, promoting better living conditions in a sustainable environmental framework, even so she would be criticized and facing impeachment, just for being a woman?

    It would be funny if it were not tragic that Eduardo Cunha, president of the Chamber of Deputies, accused of various crimes of corruption and money laundering, process defendant pending in the Supreme Court, accompanied by 37 members of the special impeachment committee also accused of various crimes judging President Dilma, on which does not weigh any accusation for crimes of responsibility.

  14. Eduardo Cunha and many representatives and senators - at the government's base of support and also in the opposition - are being prosecuted for various crimes, and the whole society expects them to be stripped, processed and arrested soon. No problem.
  15. But now what is at stake is the impeachment of the president, a matter much more important and decisive for the future of the country. You need have priority: first, the federal executive; after the federal legislature, after the state executive and state legislatures etc.
    Wanting to process and arrest everybody at the same time is a way of not wanting to prosecute and arrest anyone.
  16. When ANA says "on which does not weigh any accusation for crimes of responsibility" is explicitly lying, and being guilty of acting infamously because consciously deseducative, leading those who read this letter to error.
  17. I cannot believe that ANA does not know that the impeachment process is based on a complaint of "responsibility crime" sent to Congress for three lawyers, and then analyzed in a long report by Representatve Josair Arantes, who voted for its approval. After the report was approved by the special committee formed by 80 deputies and after it was approved by the full House of Representatives (367 versus 137).
  18. Now the process will be led to the Senate, where the definitive decision regarding her impeachment will be taken.
  19. Mr Cunha is only a detail, because personally he cannot too much before the other 512 representatives. If it was not him, another deputy who chair the process of impeachment.

    Impeachment without a crime of responsibility is a "coup d'etat"!!

  20. This is true and obvious, nobody discusses ... The problem is ANA wanting - as does the PT - to deny what is being accepted as legitimate and normal in several instances that deal institutionally with this case of impeachment: the House of Representatives and the Supreme Federal Court.
  21. In fact ANA and the PT are suggesting us to disregard the Brazilian legal system and therefore the Constitution - that defines the circumstances and rite.
  22. By confusing the population regarding what is legitimate and what is not, PT and ANA deseducate people, challenge the institutions and damage the legal order.

    This illegitimate political maneuver threatens our young democracy, hurts the Brazilian Constitution and disrespects the vote of more than 54 million Brazilians who elected President Dilma Rousseff.

  23. Who can declare the "political maneuver" as "illegitime" is the House itself and especially the Supreme Court; not the PT and their supporters, neither Lula nor Dilma - all of them with obvious conflicts of interest in this process.
  24. As for whether the president was elected with 54 million votes, we must remember ANA that "impeachment" is in the Constitution exactly for cases of legitimately elected authorities - if they have committed crimes of responsibility ...
  25. The instrument is not provided in the Constitution for "illegitimately" elect rulers...
  26. And Dilma's 54 million votes represent only 38% of the electorate that voted in the 2nd. round of the 2014 election ... The remaining 62% was divided between Aecio Neves, the null and blank votes, and the abstentions.
  27. The 38% support that Dilma had in 2014 (today would be much less) did not give her the right to impose on the remaining 62% an irresponsible ideology and harm the Brazilian society - which, in its majority, has never supported her.

    We have expressed our criticism of the government Dilma because she has distanced herself from key proposals announced in the election campaign.

  28. The "key proposals announced in the election campaign" were mere false advertising, promises impossible to be fulfilled, especially since the deterioration of public accounts framework - which she then hid from the voters..
  29. If it were possible, she would like to fulfil her unrealizable promises. It's not about "want" ..
  30. But only voted for her who wanted to be deceived, usually for personal or ideological reasons, not technical or rational ones.

    In addition to not advance urgent structural reforms, such as the agrarian and urban reforms, she has put in place an economic policy that destinated a lot of resources to the finance sector, at the expense of social policies, such as programs in the semiarid region, the technical assistance and rural extension, and the food acquisition program of family farmers, to name a few.

  31. In fact, the imbalance of public accounts, caused by a series of bad decisions (to say the least), led Brazil to brutally increase the basic interest rate in order to be able get borrowed funds to finance the public PRIMARY deficit of 33 billion US dollars in 2015..
  32. The more unbalanced the economy and hugest the government's deficit, the greater the need to borrow money at increasingly higher interest rates. Mainly after Brazil has recently lost the "investment grade" according the three main credit rating agencies.
  33. Rousseff in 2015 made our public debt increase to staggering TWENTY ONE PERCENT in just one year, now reaching mind-blowing 900 billion US dollars. 
  34. This is the disaster that Dilma caused, and it will cost inevitable sacrifices of us all (as the comment 7 above).

    In spite of the criticism, we recognize that Lula and Dilma have implemented policies aimed at the poorest segments of the population historically excluded from the actions of the Brazilian State.

  35. ANA cannot say that the poorest plots were historically excluded from the actions of the Brazilian State. Several policies were being implemented by the federal and state governments earlier, as the very social grants, the Lula always wanted to usurp as your creation. The universalization of basic education, the National Health System, the National Social Security Institute were also significant efforts to include the poorest Brazilian citizenship.
  36. This myth - that before Lula no one had cared about the poorest - is part of the personality cult practiced by PT and its militancy - two characteristics of parties with a totalitarian bias.
  37. In addition, the most serious was that, in those years, Brazil's productivity "declined" compared with advanced countries, falling from two times less productive in the 1980s to three times less productive according to a study by IPEA (Institute of Applied Economy Research, of the Ministry of Finance) and SAE (Secretariat of Strategic Affairs, of the presidency of the Republic) published in April 2014. Compared to Germany and South Korea, the study found that Brazil is four times less productive, and to the US, five times ... Today, 2016, I am sure that this ratio fell even more ... How can the population be enriching, reducing poverty, if productivity is falling?
  38. It is also good to remember that the subsidized loans, the tax waivers and the huge deviations occurred in the Lula and Dilma's years transferred to the bank accounts of PT leaders, politicians allied base, contractors, bankers and mega-entrepreneurs more resources than the social programs have transferred to the poor.

    We highlight the creation, in the Dilma government, of the National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production, as the result of an extensive process of democratic debate with civil society - which was able to formulate proposals aimed at promoting food security and nutrition, for example, the National Program for Pesticide Reduction.


  39.  While the PT governments gave a small space to the agroecological young people - to formulate policies that will have the lowest priority in the government - it was opening up Brazil to transgenic food, the Ministry of Agriculture was gave to the maximum leader of the agribusiness, and freed the use of increasingly harmful pesticides, banned in other countries.
  40. Sometimes I have the impression that ANA supports Dilma because of these small insignificant victories if compared to governmental inaction to promote real changes in our mentalities and in the prevailing social practices of Brazilian society.
  41. Was ANA "selling" itself for so little, giving up to oppose the errors and crimes against the entire Brazilian nation only because of a minimum space conquered in the government machine and access to derisory sums compared to what was "invested" in corruption?

    To take forward the agenda of agroecology as part of a strategy for democratization and sustainability of Brazilian society, we stood and mobilized in the second round of presidential elections in 2014, in Rousseff's candidacy defense.

  42. ANA considers normal to have positioned and mobilized itself in support of the candidacy of Dilma in 2014.
  43. ANA never made a self-criticism nor apologized for having advised its members to vote for the candidate of a party that was already denounced as a "criminal organization" by Supreme Court judges and other public prosecutors, and Dilma already reported among those responsible for billion dollar losses in Petrobras (of which she was chairwoman of its Board of Directors)..
  44. If Dilma was only supported by 38% of the voters (and today this support would be even lower), would all the agroecologists that ANA seeks to represent support Dilma ? I do not believe!
  45. ANA forgets that agroecology, urban agriculture and sustainable city-region agrifood systems are not monopoly of leftist movements, nor were invented by them.
  46. On the contrary, it is in the advanced countries that this agenda is being adopted more seriously, and it is from there that comes the incentive to poor countries also adopt it.

    We will fight to defeat the criminal impeachment process. We will give our contribution to, once again, demonstrate that the democratic forces of Brazilian society are alive and they know in which side to stand at this critical moment of the national history.


  47. A National Articulation of anything can not call as "criminal" a process that is legitimately underway in the Brazilian House of Representatives , under permanent monitoring of our Supreme Court.
  48.  Just because the process is going in a direction that ANA does not appreciate, this is no reason to call it a "criminal" process. Doing so, is to bet for the institutional breakdown, and - on the edge - in the civil war.
  49. ANA is being biased when considering that "democratic forces" are those who oppose impeachment, forgetting that this feature exists in the Constitution precisely to protectour fragile democracy from evil rulers legitimately elected. 
  50. How can ANA know whether the opponents of Dilma not represent - at least also - democratic forces? Are ANA's leaders more democratic than me?
  51. And, if the majority of population does not support Dilma, it is very possible that a great number of people that participate in ANA doesn't do it as well.

      We demand respect for the popular vote!

  52. Having been elected by popular vote (although only 38% of the electorate) does not give her the right to make crimes of fiscal responsibility, that resulted in a crisis with no foreseeable end.

    In defense of Democracy! For the Agroecology

  53. Okay. Why not? Let's leave these phrases without any comment.

    "There will be no "Golpe"! There will be Fight!


  54. # The slogan that PT's members and supporters adopted - "there will be no Golpe" is of useless inconsistency, because what is happening is actually a legitimate process running in the House and thoroughly monitored by the Supreme Court.
  55. To call "golpe" a legitimate political process is a disservice to the democratic institutions, because it attempts to demoralize them as "golpistas" and seeks to raise PT to a level above the law.
  56. In addition, this attitude is des-educative (which is intolerable), inducing the most modest people to wrong conclusions in the historical and critical moment we are living Brazil.
  57. And more - this tactic of "There will be Fight!" (adopted even by Dilma herself) is a threat to society because insinuates that PT's members and supporters will not accept the outcome of the process, and will go "to the streets" bully the population and the judiciary.
  58. In fact, "agroecology", as well as ecology, has nothing to do with fighting someone. Our hope and duty is to educate people, raising awareness about their/our problems; not fight them, please. This would just spoil our chances.
  59. The fact that I work voluntarily for this agroecological awareness for 40 years, investing my time and money to help the country, makes me very moved when I see people winning MILLION reais in fictitius "consulting" and "lectures", as did Lula , Jose Dirceu, Antonio Palocci and Fernando Pimentel (PT maximum grandees).
  60. But ANA's biggest mistake is to identify the agroecological movement with an ideology which has its adherents but which has a number vastly larger of opponents, mainly now, when PT has demoralized the image of Brazilian left.
  61. Agroecology and new city-region food systems are of interest to the entire population, so our job is to educate and promote the new social practices, and not to promote the revolution of the poor against the rich, please.
  62. This guidance of ANA - to identify itself with a demoralized political wing and an ideology greatly rejected by society - only hinders the spread of agroecological practices and their adoption by governments of other political stripes (majority).