Opinion: Castañeda and The Praise of Exceptions

08/27/2018 - 08h49

Jorge Castañeda has once again shown to hold the rule of law in low regard. This time, he did on the pages of The New York Times, where he defended Lula's candidacy. Back in 2004, he tried to run for president in Mexico, where it is a mandatory to be affiliated to a political party prior to the candidacy's filing. A Mexican trial court thwarted the endeavor.

His attempt was marked not by one blatant illegality, but two: he also disregarded the official deadlines for filing. His appeal to Mexico's Supreme Court didn't succeed. Nevertheless, he persisted, by taking the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), under the allegation that his political rights were denied.

The IACHR ruled against him, making it clear that the Mexican government did not violate his political or legal equality rights.

The argument then is the same he makes now: the former Brazilian president deserves special treatment, just like Castañeda thought himself deserved.

Brazilian courts invalidated 832 candidacies in the 2016 mayor elections, and another 253 in 2014's representatives elections, according to website Congresso em Foco. But apparently exceptions need to be made for people like Lula and Castañeda.

Castañeda says that the events in Brazil are similar to cases in Nicaragua and Venezuela, although he acknowledges some differences between the three situations. Even with this acknowledge, this statement is completely outlandish.

The inconsistency of his arguments is made plain when he brings up a confusing discussion about an imaginary conflict between democracy and rule of law. He sustains that when the two principles oppose each other, democracy should prevail, meaning that voting booths should trump the rule of law.

The Mueller investigation is a good example. Should the rule of law trump (pun intended) over the American president's popularity or vice versa? Trump's election or popularity would justify special treatment? It's obvious that the U.S. political system's checks and balances hinder any chance of the country falling into tyranny.

That is not the case with many other democratic countries. Representative democracy assumes rule of law; its pillars are majority rule, constitutionalism, and republicanism.

As long as Castañeda and other foreign observers repeat this narrative of coup and political persecution, Lula and his party reconcile with the supposed coup plotters in political rallies all over the country. The former Mexican Foreign Minister is a useful cogwheel in a gear that he perhaps he does not understand.

*Marcus André Melo is a professor of political science in the Federal University of Pernambuco and a former visiting scholar at Yale.

Translated by NATASHA MADOV

Read the article in the original language