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.
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
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...
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.
- Certainly - and of course -
the process is led by opposition lawmakers.
- But ANA is inventing when
stating that they are "in alliance with characters of the judiciary."
Who they are? When? How?
- 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.
- 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).
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.
reactionary offensive has fueled a hate culture, even able to
systematically rely on sexist speeches attempting to disqualify
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
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.
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....
insinuate that there is a "sexist", chauvinist, element in the
criticism of President Dilma is to appeal to much to ignorance.
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?
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?
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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).
- Now the process will be led
to the Senate, where the definitive decision regarding her impeachment
will be taken.
- 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"!!
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
- In fact
ANA and the PT are suggesting us to disregard the Brazilian legal
system and therefore the Constitution - that defines the circumstances
- By confusing the
population regarding what is legitimate and what is not, PT and ANA
deseducate people, challenge the institutions and damage the legal
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.
- 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.
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 ...
- The instrument is not
provided in the Constitution for "illegitimately" elect rulers...
- 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.
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.
have expressed our criticism of the government Dilma because she has
distanced herself from key proposals announced in the election campaign.
"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
- If it were possible, she
would like to fulfil her unrealizable promises. It's not about "want" ..
- But only voted for her
who wanted to be deceived, usually for personal or ideological reasons,
not technical or rational ones.
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.
- 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..
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.
- 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.
- This is the disaster
that Dilma caused, and it will cost inevitable sacrifices of us all (as
the comment 7 above).
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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?
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.
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.
- 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
- 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?
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.
- ANA considers normal to have
positioned and mobilized itself in support of the candidacy of Dilma in
- 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
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!
forgets that agroecology, urban agriculture and sustainable city-region
agrifood systems are not monopoly of leftist movements, nor were
invented by them.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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
can ANA know whether the opponents of Dilma not represent - at least
also - democratic forces? Are ANA's leaders more democratic than me?
- 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!
- 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
- Okay. Why not? Let's
leave these phrases without any comment.
"There will be no "Golpe"! There will be Fight!
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.
- 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.
- In addition, this attitude
des-educative (which is intolerable), inducing the most modest people
to wrong conclusions in the historical and critical moment we are
- 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.
- In fact, "agroecology", 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.
- 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
- But ANA's biggest mistake is
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.
- 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.
- This guidance of ANA - to
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