April 28, 2025 • 35 mins
Rubens Glezer is a professor of Constitutional Law at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation Law School in São Paulo. He holds a PhD in Legal Theory from USP, a Master's in Law and Development from the Getúlio Vargas Law School and is a visiting researcher at NYU (New York University). Glezer is a specialist in Brazil's Supreme Court and is the author of several research and scientific works, as well as a frequent commentator in the media about the country's higher court. He is the author of the book "Resiliência e Deslealdade Constitucional" (Resilience and Constitutional Disloyalty), nominated for the prestigious book award Jabuti Prize in 2024.
Brazil is going through challenging times. There’s never been a more important moment to understand Brazil’s politics, society, and culture. To go beyond the headlines, and to ask questions that aren’t easy to answer. 'Brazil Unfiltered,' does just that. This podcast is hosted by James N. Green, Professor of Brazilian History and Culture at Brown University and the National Co-Coordinator of the U.S. Network for Democracy in Brazil.
Brazil Unfiltered is part of the Democracy Observatory, supported by the Washington Brazil Office. This podcast is edited and produced by Camilo Rocha in São Paulo.
https://www.braziloffice.org/en/observatory#activities
Brazil is going through challenging times. There’s never been a more important moment to understand Brazil’s politics, society, and culture. To go beyond the headlines, and to ask questions that aren’t easy to answer. 'Brazil Unfiltered,' does just that. This podcast is hosted by James N. Green, Professor of Brazilian History and Culture at Brown University and the National Co-Coordinator of the U.S. Network for Democracy in Brazil.
Brazil Unfiltered is part of the Democracy Observatory, supported by the Washington Brazil Office. This podcast is edited and produced by Camilo Rocha in São Paulo.
https://www.braziloffice.org/en/observatory#activities
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm James Naylor Green, Professor of Brazilian History and Culture
Emeritus at Brown University and the national co coordinator of
the US Network for Democracy in Brazil. This program is
supported by the Washington Brazil Office. This is Brazil Unfiltered today.
We have the pleasure of receiving Hubin's Glazier, who is
a professor of constitutional law at the Jutul Vagas Foundation
(00:24):
Law School in Saint Paulo. He holds a PhD in
Legal theory from the University of Saint Paulo, a master's
in Law and Development from the Joetul Vagas Law School,
and is a visiting research fellow at New York University.
Glazier is a specialist in the Brazilian Supreme Court and
is the author of many articles and other works, a
frequent commentator in the media about the country's highest court,
(00:46):
and the author of the book his Elensiadji, Constitutional Resilience
and Constitutional Disloyalty, nominated for the Precidious Book Award Jabouci
Prize in twenty twenty four, whomans thank you so much
for joining us today on Brazil and Filter.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Thank you. James. Is a pleasure to be here great.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
So today we're going to look at the current situation
in Brazil regarding the legal cases against former president Jaira
Bosonado and others accused of trying to carry out a
coup after the twenty twenty two presidential elections. Who is
could you start explaining to our listener about the situation
with Bolsonado and the Brazilian Supreme Court and what are
(01:27):
the charges against him? With the conditions around that, why
did the government bring charges against him?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Sure? So the chargers are basically that while Wilsonario was
in office, he planned and took measures to try to
stage jaqut deta in case he did not win the
twenty twenty two elections. So these actions included discussiing executive
(01:56):
order to concentrate executive powers and restrain liberty so he
couldn't be in office for a determinate period of time.
He made a took meetings with the leaders of the
armed forces and tried to persuade them to be with
(02:18):
him in this attempt. These meetings occurred and have proof
the executive decree was discussed, printed, edited, and also President
Bolsnar was aware of a plan that almost took place
(02:39):
to assassinate one of the Supreme Court justices, Ministrulation Demoris,
and to poison the actual president Lula and his vice
president yet auto Alchemy. So these are serious accusations and
there's a lot of proof. There's a lot of and records,
(03:01):
what's up, messages, so on and so forth. So it's
very unusual to think that we have this many documented
proof of such actions. But I believe that Bosonado, when
his crew had bin blind faith that they would not
they would succeed, would not be charged.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
So it's following up on that. I think it's interesting
to see that the invasion of the Brazilian central area
of the of the capitol, which has the Congress of
Supreme Court headquarters and the administ the administrative building of
the Presidential President's office. People invaded those three buildings and
(03:44):
destroyed the property as part of the reaction to the coup. Now,
Bosonata was in the United States at the time, so
he is claimed he claimed that he was innocent and
far away from the events. How does that play into
this into this uh accusations against him, that Bosonata was
in the un the States when much of the of
the violence took place, so this is.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
The more fragile part of the accusation, not so much
because he was in the United States, because it's perfectly
plausible that he could direct and coordinate the coup with
his agents from abroad, with internet and cell phones, et cetera.
But we have to the Public Prosecutor's office has to
(04:27):
show how this act of the end of twenty twenty two,
while he was in office is clearly connected with this
manifestations of people throughout the end of twenty twenty two,
the beginning of twenty twenty three, in front of the
(04:48):
Army asking for interventions, military intervations, asking for the data
that culminated in the January eighth that it's our capital invasion. Right. So,
but it's not easy to make this link because this
could be treated as two separate issues. But for now
(05:09):
the Supreme Court is understanding to treat both as bolsona
duty or couldn't be child by both. Then we have
just cause to try out him for both eyebots.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
This and so for for our listeners who might not
follow the details of what happened in Brazil after the elections.
The elections were in October of twenty to two. Lula
won by a two point advantage at the end of
the day. And immediately after that, Bolson our supporters started mobilizing,
blocking traffical over the country. And then when that really
(05:42):
backfired and people found that really annoying and many people
couldn't get the hospitals or all many problems, then they
went as you mentioned and camped outside of military installations
headquarters locally off the country, demanding the military intervene. And
this led this, this continuation of escalation in Brazilia in
(06:03):
in January led to people marching on the on the
the Plaza of Three Powers, which is the name of
the area where the three buildings are, and to try
to carry out the coup. So I think people who
many people just assume they post, is going to be convicted.
What is your assessment of that is it if you
think there, I think he will be convicted as far
(06:26):
as you can tell or what you're what you're feeling about.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
That, Okay, So everything points toward his Uh, he's found
guilty because we we as I said, we have a
lot of proof. The line of defense is very evasive
because what is established in the criminal code is that
(06:53):
the crime is the attempt to abolish the rule of law,
the democratic rule of law. So why the lawyers are saying, well,
he's not trying per se, but he was considering abolish
the rule of law. And I don't think that this
(07:13):
is very persuasive to this set of Supreme Court justices.
They are very inclined to see how Bolsonaio tried and
tried to abolish the role of law, how he attacked
the electoral system that it's maintained by justice, very different
(07:36):
from the United States. The electoral system is maintained in
the US by the political system. Right in Brazil is
run by the judicial system that its subordinate to the
Supreme Court. So they lived this attacked against the Supreme Court,
against the judicial branch that run the elections, and they
(07:58):
lived in real time with threats against them, against the institution.
So they have a real sense of how close we
came to a real that it's very far away of
h merely considering et cetera, et cetera, and in some
sense a lot of the political world. Even though rights
(08:22):
will consider that Parsonnel went beyond what it's considered to
be legitimate and fair gain in politics. So he's already inelectable. Right,
and when he became an.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Electable, you're explaining he's ineligible to run for office.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Sorry, he's already is.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
So that was based on what and who did make
that decision that he couldn't run for office until twenty
and thirty. Who made that decision?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Okay, it was the electoral justice because he made meeting
with a lot of foreign ambassadors trying to uh imply
or affirm that the the system was fraudulent with no
base and so this was understood as an electoral crime.
(09:17):
So he's uneligible for that already. So, uh, this sets
forth a space right. When that happened, there was no
great manifestations of the right right wing, there was no
street movement, there was no rallies. Uh, this was uh
(09:39):
treated as accessable even by the far right, because he's
someone that the political system doesn't want to deal with.
That seems they want the benefit of having the bolson
Arrow idea of having bolsonarists voters, But Bolsonari in itself,
it is more a problem than a solution, even for
the right.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
So in the United States, when Trump was accused of
being involved in electoral fraud and interference and trying to
overturn the election results, which led to the invasion of
the capitol. That the cases that went against him were local,
they were tried in different different district courts. They didn't
go right to the Supreme Court. Why why in Brazil
(10:20):
does to the charges against Bolsonado and former generals and
other members of his government. Why why does it go
immediately to the Supreme Court. What's the legal reasons for that?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Okay, So we have here. Our Supreme Court has a
lot of we call competencies. It has a lot of hats.
So it's a constitutional court because it's judicial review cases
where it considers the constructionality of laws. It is a
(10:52):
supreme court because it's it is the last instance of
revision of ordinary cases. You can go and a law
of cases go to the Supreme Court, and it also
trials these criminal cases directly. It's called photoprivileged jad. It's
the kind of a guarantee for someone that holds office
(11:13):
it won't suffer lawsuits, lawsuits against throughout the country, right
so they will be investigated and prosecuted only in one
place in the name of political stability. So these rules
of photoprivilegeda do put figures as the President, senators, federal
(11:37):
congressmen directly in the Supreme Court or the superior Court
of Electoral Justice.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
So you've implied that many people think that both nat
will be be convicted. But what is the defense that
his attorneys are going to use. In addition to the fact
that the links between causality between what he wanted to
have happened and what happened, we're not very close or direct.
(12:05):
What is the defense making us an argument to say
why he should not be found guilty?
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Okay, So the basic arguments will be there's no proof
right of causation. That is the very difficult to prove
in any case like that there was a direct order
or something like that to execute the Coudetta right. Always
have some message from some subordinates saying that that Bolsonado
(12:35):
told him to do that, this, and that. So you
have these argument about proof. And the second arguments, as
I said earlier, are earlier are regard to the idea
that he was not attempting really attempting to make a quditta,
but he was just considering to take this line of
(12:57):
action that he taught that he had meetings, but he
did not seriously pursued this that. Of course, it's not
a really plausible line of argumentation. Uh, it does not
seem to be very effective to this back of justices.
(13:18):
But all can change if the Congress approves the amnesty law,
and then the argument will be just the opposite.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Well, I'm gonna get to that in a minute. But
let's let's look on this little bit more in terms
of the accusations. When I when I when I heard
when I read in the newspapers in Brazil that Bolsonado
and many of the generals were in his government were
being indicted by the federal police, I was really in
shock because this is the first time as an historian
(13:49):
of Brazil to see this happening. The implications they unpreceded
this of this action. Could you give a context to
our listener about what it means for the military to
be possibly condemned to years in prison in Brazil and
why that's such an unusual thing.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Sure, in Brazil we have a tradition to deal with
this kind of conflict with no accountability. Right, the parties tried, normally,
especially the elites, tried to get along and put it
in the past, with institutional mechanisms or without right so
(14:33):
the idea, and that happened also with the dictatorship, the
military dictatorship that was installed in Brazil from nineteen sixty
four to eighty seven ninety eighty eight, where we solved
the problem of them. We could install democracy by a
(14:55):
law of general and broad amnesty, where no one would
be investigated or persecuted in reasons of political crimes. So
not the democratic subverters of the regime, nor the torturers
of the regime right, nor who was from the regime
(15:19):
or against the regime would be prosecuted. So this was
a very strong part.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Just to be clear about that, that means that no one,
including the people who tortured former president Jimi Museafi, have
ever been prosecuted in a criminal case or found Therefore,
no one has been found guilty because there have been
no cases. In a few civil cases they have people
have been found guilty of violation of human rights, but
not in any criminal case. So this is the first
(15:45):
time actually there would be some kind of responsibility for
people who are going against the democratic order, because nothing
like that happened after the twenty one to twenty five
years of the dictatorship happened. However, you count the end
of it, So that's pretty significant to me. Will will
they get away with that? What the military? Will the
(16:06):
armed forces allow some of their members to be put
to jail for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Well, James, that is unprecedented. But we are we're having
this prospect, and we are having this prospect because of
this one peculiar justice called Alison de jimurais that it
is completely outside or doesn't care for this tradition of
(16:35):
putting things aside. He's a he was by formation a
public prosecutor for many years. He was a public prosecutor
in the state of Saint Paul, which is a very
prestigious career, very it is very prestigious. He was a
(16:56):
Secretary of Security here and justice. He was a Ministry
of justice. He has a long public career on law
enforcement and a law and order trinitivist type. So when
he comes to the Supreme Court appointed by Timer, he
who is a right wing leader, a right wing president,
(17:20):
and Alishendimnies is a right wing man, a conservative, but
he is a punitivist. So as soon as he gets
in touch with his with this crimes against the Supreme Court,
the justices of Law he has no interest in negotiat,
he has no interest to pardon or to forget. He
(17:45):
wants to put all of them in jail. So it
is a very weird moment when you have this very
high place of judicial yerarchy, someone that is not bound
by the informal rules of elites off not getting so
(18:05):
rough on each other that it's very unprecedented between us.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Oh, but some people criticize Alisandre what with the argument
that he has a subjective stake in the matter, he
should recuse himself because he has actually himself been the
object of violent accusations by some of the people who
he's charging, who have denounced him, and so he has
not recused himself. He said, no, I'm going to I'm
(18:30):
going to stand in this determination, in this trial. I'm
going to be a part of it. Other ministers, who
other justices who were appointed by Lula, including the person
who defended him against the car wash operations, is also
going to be ruling over this case. In the United States,
that would be something that traditionally would be considered inappropriate,
(18:51):
although in recent years with Trump, anything goes. But how
does that seen in Brazil by lawyers and legal advice
about this question of one's involvement in a case and
being a judge in a case in which one has
been accused by the defendants of committing crimes.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Effectively, it's very ambiguous because on one hand, the practice
of Brazil is not so strict on partiality and bias
as it was in America judicial practice. Right, So we
have a large history on the Supreme Court and the
(19:36):
other judges also not being so. Really they think that
if they feel they are impartial, they can rule on
the case.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Right.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
So they have all the anecdotal cases where they ruled
in spite of popular commotion, finding that reasonably arbitrary. So
this is the practice, right. It is a deterior does
not have a deference to this sense of they should
(20:06):
all they they should make all they can, all their efforts,
all the best efforts to seem impartial.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
So also this is a defective practice.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
It's interesting too because a Moris is also being attacked
by Elon Musk because of the questions of his ordering.
Things that are on were on Twitter which is now
XD that were being that they the government Brazilian government
wanted to remove because they thought that they were anti
democratic runing possibility of a coup or anti democratic sentiments.
(20:42):
So I'm anticipating as the trial becomes more visible in
the United States at least x former Twitter and Elon
Musk are going to increase their attacks on both on
a Morice and on the whole process. It's mean because
they're going to argue that he's not neutral, he's not impartial.
(21:04):
But a lot of that has to do with Ela
Musk being very angry at a chance as well. Is
do you think that's going to play into this dynamic
of the of the elections, is feud between Alan Morice
and the United States or Ela Musk around free speech
and a free expression on the internet.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I think that the case against the excesses of the
Justice alas and Supreme Court in general will play a
part in the twenty twenty sixth election. It is already
electoral plat ofform that it's easily available to any kind
(21:45):
of political office today to to be a right to
wing candidates. It will be very easy in trying to
use an anti Supreme Court speech saying wow, we have
all the Supreme Court is punishing the right, They are
(22:06):
not protecting the free speech, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So this is already happening. It will be widely used
in the next year elections. And it's a problem for
Supreme Court that is losing all kinds of authority over
(22:27):
the years for a decade now from right and from
the left. Also, the index, the confidence index in the
Supreme Court are very low, but they keep stressing their
power more and more, and this will end badly. We
(22:49):
have the possibility that Justice will be impeached in the
next years, which will be also unprecedented.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
So when Donald Trump was inaugurated on the twentieth of January,
one of the first measures he took was to give
an amnesty to all of the people involved in the
January sixth invasion of the US Capitol, which was expected.
He promised that, but was very shocking because these people
were involved in crimes. They had been convicted through trial
(23:23):
by jury, having to produce evidence. Some people were no equated,
others were sent to small sentences, others for many years
in jail. And it seems very clear that that's going
to be the intention. In fact, that is the intention
of this movement in Congress now to get enough signatures
to pass so that you can force a vote on
a law that would amnesty mostly not and all the
(23:47):
people involved in the January eighth, twenty twenty three invasion
of the datas. So how are you seeing this movement
the initiative in the Congress to try to pass the bill.
Do you think the bill will pass? And if it does,
what does this bring a shock between the Supreme Court
and in the Congress.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Yeah, so this is complicated. It's a lot of a
symmetry of information because the majority of Brazilians do not
want amnesty. We have both that sign that, but the
right wing parties are blocking all congressional activities to discuss
(24:31):
this amnesty law that is very broad, so it's not
just for people that storm the capital, the Brazilian capital,
but also for anyone that has a direct or indirect
activity with them. So it would also be a lot
to amnesty bolson Ato and so he could be become
(24:57):
eligible again and could not be found guilty to extinct
extinct the actual process that is going on, right, So
what could happened, Uh, the Congress could approve this law,
this bill of amnesty, and the Constitutional Court to the
(25:18):
Brazilian Constitutional Court to make an analysis of its constitutionality
and consider that it's only valid for this massive maneuver
the people that stormed the capital with and the committed
minor felonies or whatever, and consider unconstitutional to amnesty the leaders.
(25:48):
That would be a very Brazilian way out of this
situation and very possible.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
So if we if we look at this and we
we we see a trial, we see a conviction, we
see an attempt to guarantee that some of the military
and Bolsonado in jail, and if there's not a coup deti,
which is a big question in my mind, what is
going to be the long term impact of that? You
think on Brazilian society? Well, the short term in terms
of the twenty six elections which are for the president,
(26:20):
governors and legislators. But what do you think could other
than municipal legislation and mayors of cities that's happened at
another time, What do you think of the impact and
short term and long term if in fact Bosonato is convicted.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
So I think the rights is going to suffer a fracture,
right because the rights to face the left in Brazil
has to until now agglomerate and accommodate all this conflict
of interests and a lot of different intuitions about what
is to be a right. We are et cetera, et cetera,
(27:00):
and we have this more institutional democratic right conservatives, and
we have this crazy radical anti system reactionary terrorists, spiritual
types that do not have any kind of dialogue with
(27:23):
these other types and are out of the institutional democratic game.
They don't know how to operate and are very aggressive
towards the institutional set of separation of powers, federalism, et cetera,
et cetera. Right, So I think the we also an
(27:44):
out of power. You don't have this kind of leadership
that lose all of them together, and the right will
have to decide, will have to see what Brazilians will go.
The Brazilian right will go to this institutional democratic conservative
right or this reactionary monarchy inclinent spiritual leader coaches, et cetera,
(28:12):
et cetera. That it's also on the table. So I
think there will be a decisive moment for the right
and this we'll see if we can have a country
with elections institutional disputes, or if you are going to
a scenery more chaotic, of more divisive and possibly of secession.
(28:41):
Maybe what we can have in the near future. It's
the end of this great democratic political communities, right we
had a pact luminis fact that we could live together
fully and try to solve our divergencies are disagreements to
(29:05):
institutional means. And this fact is under a severe tract
and it could end. And if it ends, what we
can see is divided countries, secession or or maybe civil wars.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Let me take advantage around one last kind of set
of questions having to do with the amazingly wonderful movie
English Do Key, I'm still here, And if our listeners
haven't said seen it yet, please do that. It's an
amazing movie about the disappearance of humans. Paiva and the
way his wife when you see Biva and the family
kind of dealt with a disappearance.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
In nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one, when the relatives of
the victims of disappeared peoples and people were killed by
the military.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Mobilized against the amnesty law that allowed for there to
be an ambassy for people who have been involved in
gross violations of human rights. Many people argue that it
was time to turn the page. Vida Paja, let's just
move on. We can't think about the past. We need
to look for the future. Is that argument an argument
you do anticipate will be used again in terms of
(30:16):
what we need to do here. In other words, Okay, well,
let's convict pos Ornata, but let's turn the page by
not putting them in jail, because that would be on
seemly to have a president in jail. Though ironically Lula
Pasted spent over a year in jail. So the right
has no problem of putting presidents in jail. So I
guess maybe the left should have no problem with that,
But how do you how do you say that playing
(30:38):
out in this regard?
Speaker 1 (30:40):
I think we this option is on the table. I
think it's a very strong argument. I think we have
a very strong tradition of turning the page right. But
this had some nefarious effects on our political system. Security
(31:00):
force is brutal against the poor. We have a huge
broad problem of inequality, not only socio economical but under
the law because of that, because we have too much
people above the law with impunity, and we have too
much people under the law that doesn't have the minimal protection,
(31:24):
the minimum of guarantees. So the idea that even military,
even powerful politicians, even entrepreneurs are accountable, will be a
radical shift in our culture.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
So just one last question. It's related to the twenty
twenty six elections. People are already talking about who the
candidates will be. Will Lula run again he has the
right to do that, or will there be another candidate.
Lula's popularity is down, but his when you pull him
against another candidate, he seems to be the most viable
(32:01):
presidential candidate this point two years before the more than
two years before the election. But one of the biggest
front runners is Darcisio, the governor of Saint Paulo. And
I'm forgetting his last name right now, Darcicio, do you remember?
Everyone forgets it.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
It's it's just yes, yes, that's amazing guy.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Just last name, just Starcisio. Uh. He you know he's
supporting Bolsonado. He was going to the rallies with Bolsonado. Uh.
On the other hand, in order to be elected, he
needs to get the far right and what was traditionally
the center right or the right or the conservative right,
reflected largely in the Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy
(32:42):
at PESI debate which has splittered and much of it
has gone to the far right. So how does he
How does he pull this off? Because on one hand,
if he supports Bolsonado, he loses all possibility of support
from kind of conservative traditionalists, shall I say uh? And
if he condemns Bosonata or supports the final decision, if
(33:06):
there is a decision against him, he will lose the
support of the far right because his Bolsonata supporters will
go against him. So how does he thread that needle?
As they say, how does he manage that complexity?
Speaker 1 (33:19):
He poses Tarcisigi Fatas poses as a technocrat right. He
worked during the Juma government in one of the ministries,
So he poses as someone that it's an outsider from politics,
and he's tough on laws, but not so tough. He's
(33:45):
not eccentric. He can dialogue, but he's been brutal on
the state of Sam Paul and had accomplished very little
that public security in the states it's in chaos. But
he's pr is we're doing we're doing provitizations and this
(34:05):
kind of discourse, a technocratic discourse, is very sympathetic to
Brazilian conservative voters. So after Lula Bosonadu and Lula. It's
very likely to elect some kind of technocrats. They'll say, well,
(34:26):
let's get politics on the side and solve the economic
crisis or whatever. I think this has huge electoral advantage
in Brazil.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Interesting. Well, I want to thank you so much for
an amazingly interesting conversation today. We really learned a lot
about this process going on, and it's something we're going
to be paying a lot of attention to. As an
unfolds is here, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
Who is Thank you. It's a great honor. I'm eager
to be here again as Susan as possible.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
Great.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
So, I hope you enjoyed the interview. If you're watching
on YouTube, don't forget to like the video. And if
you have not yet subscribed, please do so. And if
you're listening on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen
to your podcast, please leave us a five star review.
It helps some people find the program. Have a great week.
Until next time at Teprosy
Hi.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm James Naylor Green, Professor of Brazilian History and Culture
Emeritus at Brown University and the national co coordinator of
the US Network for Democracy in Brazil. This program is
supported by the Washington Brazil Office. This is Brazil Unfiltered today.
We have the pleasure of receiving Hubin's Glazier, who is
a professor of constitutional law at the Jutul Vagas Foundation
(00:24):
Law School in Saint Paulo. He holds a PhD in
Legal theory from the University of Saint Paulo, a master's
in Law and Development from the Joetul Vagas Law School,
and is a visiting research fellow at New York University.
Glazier is a specialist in the Brazilian Supreme Court and
is the author of many articles and other works, a
frequent commentator in the media about the country's highest court,
(00:46):
and the author of the book his Elensiadji, Constitutional Resilience
and Constitutional Disloyalty, nominated for the Precidious Book Award Jabouci
Prize in twenty twenty four, whomans thank you so much
for joining us today on Brazil and Filter.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Thank you. James. Is a pleasure to be here great.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
So today we're going to look at the current situation
in Brazil regarding the legal cases against former president Jaira
Bosonado and others accused of trying to carry out a
coup after the twenty twenty two presidential elections. Who is
could you start explaining to our listener about the situation
with Bolsonado and the Brazilian Supreme Court and what are
(01:27):
the charges against him? With the conditions around that, why
did the government bring charges against him?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Sure? So the chargers are basically that while Wilsonario was
in office, he planned and took measures to try to
stage jaqut deta in case he did not win the
twenty twenty two elections. So these actions included discussiing executive
(01:56):
order to concentrate executive powers and restrain liberty so he
couldn't be in office for a determinate period of time.
He made a took meetings with the leaders of the
armed forces and tried to persuade them to be with
(02:18):
him in this attempt. These meetings occurred and have proof
the executive decree was discussed, printed, edited, and also President
Bolsnar was aware of a plan that almost took place
(02:39):
to assassinate one of the Supreme Court justices, Ministrulation Demoris,
and to poison the actual president Lula and his vice
president yet auto Alchemy. So these are serious accusations and
there's a lot of proof. There's a lot of and records,
(03:01):
what's up, messages, so on and so forth. So it's
very unusual to think that we have this many documented
proof of such actions. But I believe that Bosonado, when
his crew had bin blind faith that they would not
they would succeed, would not be charged.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
So it's following up on that. I think it's interesting
to see that the invasion of the Brazilian central area
of the of the capitol, which has the Congress of
Supreme Court headquarters and the administ the administrative building of
the Presidential President's office. People invaded those three buildings and
(03:44):
destroyed the property as part of the reaction to the coup. Now,
Bosonata was in the United States at the time, so
he is claimed he claimed that he was innocent and
far away from the events. How does that play into
this into this uh accusations against him, that Bosonata was
in the un the States when much of the of
the violence took place, so this is.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
The more fragile part of the accusation, not so much
because he was in the United States, because it's perfectly
plausible that he could direct and coordinate the coup with
his agents from abroad, with internet and cell phones, et cetera.
But we have to the Public Prosecutor's office has to
(04:27):
show how this act of the end of twenty twenty two,
while he was in office is clearly connected with this
manifestations of people throughout the end of twenty twenty two,
the beginning of twenty twenty three, in front of the
(04:48):
Army asking for interventions, military intervations, asking for the data
that culminated in the January eighth that it's our capital invasion. Right. So,
but it's not easy to make this link because this
could be treated as two separate issues. But for now
(05:09):
the Supreme Court is understanding to treat both as bolsona
duty or couldn't be child by both. Then we have
just cause to try out him for both eyebots.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
This and so for for our listeners who might not
follow the details of what happened in Brazil after the elections.
The elections were in October of twenty to two. Lula
won by a two point advantage at the end of
the day. And immediately after that, Bolson our supporters started mobilizing,
blocking traffical over the country. And then when that really
(05:42):
backfired and people found that really annoying and many people
couldn't get the hospitals or all many problems, then they
went as you mentioned and camped outside of military installations
headquarters locally off the country, demanding the military intervene. And
this led this, this continuation of escalation in Brazilia in
(06:03):
in January led to people marching on the on the
the Plaza of Three Powers, which is the name of
the area where the three buildings are, and to try
to carry out the coup. So I think people who
many people just assume they post, is going to be convicted.
What is your assessment of that is it if you
think there, I think he will be convicted as far
(06:26):
as you can tell or what you're what you're feeling about.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
That, Okay, So everything points toward his Uh, he's found
guilty because we we as I said, we have a
lot of proof. The line of defense is very evasive
because what is established in the criminal code is that
(06:53):
the crime is the attempt to abolish the rule of law,
the democratic rule of law. So why the lawyers are saying, well,
he's not trying per se, but he was considering abolish
the rule of law. And I don't think that this
(07:13):
is very persuasive to this set of Supreme Court justices.
They are very inclined to see how Bolsonaio tried and
tried to abolish the role of law, how he attacked
the electoral system that it's maintained by justice, very different
(07:36):
from the United States. The electoral system is maintained in
the US by the political system. Right in Brazil is
run by the judicial system that its subordinate to the
Supreme Court. So they lived this attacked against the Supreme Court,
against the judicial branch that run the elections, and they
(07:58):
lived in real time with threats against them, against the institution.
So they have a real sense of how close we
came to a real that it's very far away of
h merely considering et cetera, et cetera, and in some
sense a lot of the political world. Even though rights
(08:22):
will consider that Parsonnel went beyond what it's considered to
be legitimate and fair gain in politics. So he's already inelectable. Right,
and when he became an.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Electable, you're explaining he's ineligible to run for office.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Sorry, he's already is.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
So that was based on what and who did make
that decision that he couldn't run for office until twenty
and thirty. Who made that decision?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Okay, it was the electoral justice because he made meeting
with a lot of foreign ambassadors trying to uh imply
or affirm that the the system was fraudulent with no
base and so this was understood as an electoral crime.
(09:17):
So he's uneligible for that already. So, uh, this sets
forth a space right. When that happened, there was no
great manifestations of the right right wing, there was no
street movement, there was no rallies. Uh, this was uh
(09:39):
treated as accessable even by the far right, because he's
someone that the political system doesn't want to deal with.
That seems they want the benefit of having the bolson
Arrow idea of having bolsonarists voters, But Bolsonari in itself,
it is more a problem than a solution, even for
the right.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
So in the United States, when Trump was accused of
being involved in electoral fraud and interference and trying to
overturn the election results, which led to the invasion of
the capitol. That the cases that went against him were local,
they were tried in different different district courts. They didn't
go right to the Supreme Court. Why why in Brazil
(10:20):
does to the charges against Bolsonado and former generals and
other members of his government. Why why does it go
immediately to the Supreme Court. What's the legal reasons for that?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Okay, So we have here. Our Supreme Court has a
lot of we call competencies. It has a lot of hats.
So it's a constitutional court because it's judicial review cases
where it considers the constructionality of laws. It is a
(10:52):
supreme court because it's it is the last instance of
revision of ordinary cases. You can go and a law
of cases go to the Supreme Court, and it also
trials these criminal cases directly. It's called photoprivileged jad. It's
the kind of a guarantee for someone that holds office
(11:13):
it won't suffer lawsuits, lawsuits against throughout the country, right
so they will be investigated and prosecuted only in one
place in the name of political stability. So these rules
of photoprivilegeda do put figures as the President, senators, federal
(11:37):
congressmen directly in the Supreme Court or the superior Court
of Electoral Justice.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
So you've implied that many people think that both nat
will be be convicted. But what is the defense that
his attorneys are going to use. In addition to the fact
that the links between causality between what he wanted to
have happened and what happened, we're not very close or direct.
(12:05):
What is the defense making us an argument to say
why he should not be found guilty?
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Okay, So the basic arguments will be there's no proof
right of causation. That is the very difficult to prove
in any case like that there was a direct order
or something like that to execute the Coudetta right. Always
have some message from some subordinates saying that that Bolsonado
(12:35):
told him to do that, this, and that. So you
have these argument about proof. And the second arguments, as
I said earlier, are earlier are regard to the idea
that he was not attempting really attempting to make a quditta,
but he was just considering to take this line of
(12:57):
action that he taught that he had meetings, but he
did not seriously pursued this that. Of course, it's not
a really plausible line of argumentation. Uh, it does not
seem to be very effective to this back of justices.
(13:18):
But all can change if the Congress approves the amnesty law,
and then the argument will be just the opposite.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Well, I'm gonna get to that in a minute. But
let's let's look on this little bit more in terms
of the accusations. When I when I when I heard
when I read in the newspapers in Brazil that Bolsonado
and many of the generals were in his government were
being indicted by the federal police, I was really in
shock because this is the first time as an historian
(13:49):
of Brazil to see this happening. The implications they unpreceded
this of this action. Could you give a context to
our listener about what it means for the military to
be possibly condemned to years in prison in Brazil and
why that's such an unusual thing.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Sure, in Brazil we have a tradition to deal with
this kind of conflict with no accountability. Right, the parties tried, normally,
especially the elites, tried to get along and put it
in the past, with institutional mechanisms or without right so
(14:33):
the idea, and that happened also with the dictatorship, the
military dictatorship that was installed in Brazil from nineteen sixty
four to eighty seven ninety eighty eight, where we solved
the problem of them. We could install democracy by a
(14:55):
law of general and broad amnesty, where no one would
be investigated or persecuted in reasons of political crimes. So
not the democratic subverters of the regime, nor the torturers
of the regime right, nor who was from the regime
(15:19):
or against the regime would be prosecuted. So this was
a very strong part.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Just to be clear about that, that means that no one,
including the people who tortured former president Jimi Museafi, have
ever been prosecuted in a criminal case or found Therefore,
no one has been found guilty because there have been
no cases. In a few civil cases they have people
have been found guilty of violation of human rights, but
not in any criminal case. So this is the first
(15:45):
time actually there would be some kind of responsibility for
people who are going against the democratic order, because nothing
like that happened after the twenty one to twenty five
years of the dictatorship happened. However, you count the end
of it, So that's pretty significant to me. Will will
they get away with that? What the military? Will the
(16:06):
armed forces allow some of their members to be put
to jail for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Well, James, that is unprecedented. But we are we're having
this prospect, and we are having this prospect because of
this one peculiar justice called Alison de jimurais that it
is completely outside or doesn't care for this tradition of
(16:35):
putting things aside. He's a he was by formation a
public prosecutor for many years. He was a public prosecutor
in the state of Saint Paul, which is a very
prestigious career, very it is very prestigious. He was a
(16:56):
Secretary of Security here and justice. He was a Ministry
of justice. He has a long public career on law
enforcement and a law and order trinitivist type. So when
he comes to the Supreme Court appointed by Timer, he
who is a right wing leader, a right wing president,
(17:20):
and Alishendimnies is a right wing man, a conservative, but
he is a punitivist. So as soon as he gets
in touch with his with this crimes against the Supreme Court,
the justices of Law he has no interest in negotiat,
he has no interest to pardon or to forget. He
(17:45):
wants to put all of them in jail. So it
is a very weird moment when you have this very
high place of judicial yerarchy, someone that is not bound
by the informal rules of elites off not getting so
(18:05):
rough on each other that it's very unprecedented between us.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Oh, but some people criticize Alisandre what with the argument
that he has a subjective stake in the matter, he
should recuse himself because he has actually himself been the
object of violent accusations by some of the people who
he's charging, who have denounced him, and so he has
not recused himself. He said, no, I'm going to I'm
(18:30):
going to stand in this determination, in this trial. I'm
going to be a part of it. Other ministers, who
other justices who were appointed by Lula, including the person
who defended him against the car wash operations, is also
going to be ruling over this case. In the United States,
that would be something that traditionally would be considered inappropriate,
(18:51):
although in recent years with Trump, anything goes. But how
does that seen in Brazil by lawyers and legal advice
about this question of one's involvement in a case and
being a judge in a case in which one has
been accused by the defendants of committing crimes.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Effectively, it's very ambiguous because on one hand, the practice
of Brazil is not so strict on partiality and bias
as it was in America judicial practice. Right, So we
have a large history on the Supreme Court and the
(19:36):
other judges also not being so. Really they think that
if they feel they are impartial, they can rule on
the case.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Right.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
So they have all the anecdotal cases where they ruled
in spite of popular commotion, finding that reasonably arbitrary. So
this is the practice, right. It is a deterior does
not have a deference to this sense of they should
(20:06):
all they they should make all they can, all their efforts,
all the best efforts to seem impartial.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
So also this is a defective practice.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
It's interesting too because a Moris is also being attacked
by Elon Musk because of the questions of his ordering.
Things that are on were on Twitter which is now
XD that were being that they the government Brazilian government
wanted to remove because they thought that they were anti
democratic runing possibility of a coup or anti democratic sentiments.
(20:42):
So I'm anticipating as the trial becomes more visible in
the United States at least x former Twitter and Elon
Musk are going to increase their attacks on both on
a Morice and on the whole process. It's mean because
they're going to argue that he's not neutral, he's not impartial.
(21:04):
But a lot of that has to do with Ela
Musk being very angry at a chance as well. Is
do you think that's going to play into this dynamic
of the of the elections, is feud between Alan Morice
and the United States or Ela Musk around free speech
and a free expression on the internet.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I think that the case against the excesses of the
Justice alas and Supreme Court in general will play a
part in the twenty twenty sixth election. It is already
electoral plat ofform that it's easily available to any kind
(21:45):
of political office today to to be a right to
wing candidates. It will be very easy in trying to
use an anti Supreme Court speech saying wow, we have
all the Supreme Court is punishing the right, They are
(22:06):
not protecting the free speech, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So this is already happening. It will be widely used
in the next year elections. And it's a problem for
Supreme Court that is losing all kinds of authority over
(22:27):
the years for a decade now from right and from
the left. Also, the index, the confidence index in the
Supreme Court are very low, but they keep stressing their
power more and more, and this will end badly. We
(22:49):
have the possibility that Justice will be impeached in the
next years, which will be also unprecedented.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
So when Donald Trump was inaugurated on the twentieth of January,
one of the first measures he took was to give
an amnesty to all of the people involved in the
January sixth invasion of the US Capitol, which was expected.
He promised that, but was very shocking because these people
were involved in crimes. They had been convicted through trial
(23:23):
by jury, having to produce evidence. Some people were no equated,
others were sent to small sentences, others for many years
in jail. And it seems very clear that that's going
to be the intention. In fact, that is the intention
of this movement in Congress now to get enough signatures
to pass so that you can force a vote on
a law that would amnesty mostly not and all the
(23:47):
people involved in the January eighth, twenty twenty three invasion
of the datas. So how are you seeing this movement
the initiative in the Congress to try to pass the bill.
Do you think the bill will pass? And if it does,
what does this bring a shock between the Supreme Court
and in the Congress.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Yeah, so this is complicated. It's a lot of a
symmetry of information because the majority of Brazilians do not
want amnesty. We have both that sign that, but the
right wing parties are blocking all congressional activities to discuss
(24:31):
this amnesty law that is very broad, so it's not
just for people that storm the capital, the Brazilian capital,
but also for anyone that has a direct or indirect
activity with them. So it would also be a lot
to amnesty bolson Ato and so he could be become
(24:57):
eligible again and could not be found guilty to extinct
extinct the actual process that is going on, right, So
what could happened, Uh, the Congress could approve this law,
this bill of amnesty, and the Constitutional Court to the
(25:18):
Brazilian Constitutional Court to make an analysis of its constitutionality
and consider that it's only valid for this massive maneuver
the people that stormed the capital with and the committed
minor felonies or whatever, and consider unconstitutional to amnesty the leaders.
(25:48):
That would be a very Brazilian way out of this
situation and very possible.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
So if we if we look at this and we
we we see a trial, we see a conviction, we
see an attempt to guarantee that some of the military
and Bolsonado in jail, and if there's not a coup deti,
which is a big question in my mind, what is
going to be the long term impact of that? You
think on Brazilian society? Well, the short term in terms
of the twenty six elections which are for the president,
(26:20):
governors and legislators. But what do you think could other
than municipal legislation and mayors of cities that's happened at
another time, What do you think of the impact and
short term and long term if in fact Bosonato is convicted.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
So I think the rights is going to suffer a fracture,
right because the rights to face the left in Brazil
has to until now agglomerate and accommodate all this conflict
of interests and a lot of different intuitions about what
is to be a right. We are et cetera, et cetera,
(27:00):
and we have this more institutional democratic right conservatives, and
we have this crazy radical anti system reactionary terrorists, spiritual
types that do not have any kind of dialogue with
(27:23):
these other types and are out of the institutional democratic game.
They don't know how to operate and are very aggressive
towards the institutional set of separation of powers, federalism, et cetera,
et cetera. Right, So I think the we also an
(27:44):
out of power. You don't have this kind of leadership
that lose all of them together, and the right will
have to decide, will have to see what Brazilians will go.
The Brazilian right will go to this institutional democratic conservative
right or this reactionary monarchy inclinent spiritual leader coaches, et cetera,
(28:12):
et cetera. That it's also on the table. So I
think there will be a decisive moment for the right
and this we'll see if we can have a country
with elections institutional disputes, or if you are going to
a scenery more chaotic, of more divisive and possibly of secession.
(28:41):
Maybe what we can have in the near future. It's
the end of this great democratic political communities, right we
had a pact luminis fact that we could live together
fully and try to solve our divergencies are disagreements to
(29:05):
institutional means. And this fact is under a severe tract
and it could end. And if it ends, what we
can see is divided countries, secession or or maybe civil wars.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Let me take advantage around one last kind of set
of questions having to do with the amazingly wonderful movie
English Do Key, I'm still here, And if our listeners
haven't said seen it yet, please do that. It's an
amazing movie about the disappearance of humans. Paiva and the
way his wife when you see Biva and the family
kind of dealt with a disappearance.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
In nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one, when the relatives of
the victims of disappeared peoples and people were killed by
the military.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Mobilized against the amnesty law that allowed for there to
be an ambassy for people who have been involved in
gross violations of human rights. Many people argue that it
was time to turn the page. Vida Paja, let's just
move on. We can't think about the past. We need
to look for the future. Is that argument an argument
you do anticipate will be used again in terms of
(30:16):
what we need to do here. In other words, Okay, well,
let's convict pos Ornata, but let's turn the page by
not putting them in jail, because that would be on
seemly to have a president in jail. Though ironically Lula
Pasted spent over a year in jail. So the right
has no problem of putting presidents in jail. So I
guess maybe the left should have no problem with that,
But how do you how do you say that playing
(30:38):
out in this regard?
Speaker 1 (30:40):
I think we this option is on the table. I
think it's a very strong argument. I think we have
a very strong tradition of turning the page right. But
this had some nefarious effects on our political system. Security
(31:00):
force is brutal against the poor. We have a huge
broad problem of inequality, not only socio economical but under
the law because of that, because we have too much
people above the law with impunity, and we have too
much people under the law that doesn't have the minimal protection,
(31:24):
the minimum of guarantees. So the idea that even military,
even powerful politicians, even entrepreneurs are accountable, will be a
radical shift in our culture.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
So just one last question. It's related to the twenty
twenty six elections. People are already talking about who the
candidates will be. Will Lula run again he has the
right to do that, or will there be another candidate.
Lula's popularity is down, but his when you pull him
against another candidate, he seems to be the most viable
(32:01):
presidential candidate this point two years before the more than
two years before the election. But one of the biggest
front runners is Darcisio, the governor of Saint Paulo. And
I'm forgetting his last name right now, Darcicio, do you remember?
Everyone forgets it.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
It's it's just yes, yes, that's amazing guy.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Just last name, just Starcisio. Uh. He you know he's
supporting Bolsonado. He was going to the rallies with Bolsonado. Uh.
On the other hand, in order to be elected, he
needs to get the far right and what was traditionally
the center right or the right or the conservative right,
reflected largely in the Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy
(32:42):
at PESI debate which has splittered and much of it
has gone to the far right. So how does he
How does he pull this off? Because on one hand,
if he supports Bolsonado, he loses all possibility of support
from kind of conservative traditionalists, shall I say uh? And
if he condemns Bosonata or supports the final decision, if
(33:06):
there is a decision against him, he will lose the
support of the far right because his Bolsonata supporters will
go against him. So how does he thread that needle?
As they say, how does he manage that complexity?
Speaker 1 (33:19):
He poses Tarcisigi Fatas poses as a technocrat right. He
worked during the Juma government in one of the ministries,
So he poses as someone that it's an outsider from politics,
and he's tough on laws, but not so tough. He's
(33:45):
not eccentric. He can dialogue, but he's been brutal on
the state of Sam Paul and had accomplished very little
that public security in the states it's in chaos. But
he's pr is we're doing we're doing provitizations and this
(34:05):
kind of discourse, a technocratic discourse, is very sympathetic to
Brazilian conservative voters. So after Lula Bosonadu and Lula. It's
very likely to elect some kind of technocrats. They'll say, well,
(34:26):
let's get politics on the side and solve the economic
crisis or whatever. I think this has huge electoral advantage
in Brazil.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Interesting. Well, I want to thank you so much for
an amazingly interesting conversation today. We really learned a lot
about this process going on, and it's something we're going
to be paying a lot of attention to. As an
unfolds is here, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
Who is Thank you. It's a great honor. I'm eager
to be here again as Susan as possible.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
Great.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
So, I hope you enjoyed the interview. If you're watching
on YouTube, don't forget to like the video. And if
you have not yet subscribed, please do so. And if
you're listening on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen
to your podcast, please leave us a five star review.
It helps some people find the program. Have a great week.
Until next time at Teprosy
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!