Latest Photo Galleries
Brazilian Markets
10h54 Bovespa |
+1,46% | 126.467 |
16h43 Gold |
0,00% | 117 |
10h53 Dollar |
-0,86% | 5,1195 |
16h30 Euro |
+0,49% | 2,65250 |
ADVERTISING
Editorial: Neither Rousseff Nor Temer
04/02/2016 - 21h15
Advertising
FROM SÃO PAULO
President Dilma Rousseff has lost the ability to govern Brazil.
It is with great regret that this newspaper has come to this conclusion. It is never desirable to interrupt a presidential mandate obtained by a democratic election, even through legal means.
After her party (the Workers' Party or PT) played a leading role in one of the greatest corruption scandals to date; after achieving reelection through blatant electoral fraud; after her administration brought about the worst recession in history, Rousseff is reaping what she has sowed.
An overwhelming majority has emerged in favor of her impeachment. Crowds have taken to the streets to demand the President's removal, in the largest political demonstrations ever seen in the country. The prevailing forces in Congress-ever opportunistic-have filled the void left by the collapse of the government.
The administration currently serves two purposes: first, to block the impeachment by means of a brazen purchase of parliamentary support, and second, to support former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his comrades in their troubles with the law.
Even if she wins the battle in Brazil's lower house of Congress -which seems more and more unlikely every day-it is inconceivable that she could manage to govern the country. The factors that led to her loss of authority would still remain.
As long as Rousseff remains in her position, the country will stand paralyzed, in thrall. It has to be acknowledged, that today, the President is the greatest obstacle to Brazil's recovery.
Folha will continue to gear its best efforts towards publishing a balanced summary of the facts and reflecting a broad spectrum of opinions, but the newspaper now numbers itself among those who prefer her resignation to a constitutional ouster.
While there are reasons for impeachment, not least because the legislation provides a wide range of options, none is irrefutable. Not that indications of misconduct are lacking; however, incontrovertible proof has not been found. Budget violations (so-called "fiscal maneuvers") are a questionable reason in such a highly permissive budgetary culture as ours.
The Workers' Party, despite being in disarray, has the backing of a sizable minority; an impeachment would very likely leave a trail of bitterness. Resignation, on the other hand, a selfless and realistic gesture, would signal the President's awareness that conditions beyond her will are preventing her from fulfilling her mission.
Vice-President Michel Temer should demonstrate the same awareness, since he too lacks sufficient support among society. The exceptional gravity of this crisis means that it would be a blessing if power could be returned as quickly as possible to the people so that they could invest in someone with the legitimacy required to promote the structural reforms needed in order to set Brazil on a path out of its stagnation.
The Superior Electoral Court will judge the campaign accounts of the ticket elected in 2014 and may annul them. Whichever solution prevails-the rejection of campaign accounts or the double resignation- voters would be summoned to take part in new presidential elections within 90 days.
However, the lower house of Congress or the Federal Supreme Court must first ward off the murky figure of Eduardo Cunha -next in the succession line to the Presidency- but someone who is also a defendant in that Court and someone who should never be allowed to run Brazil in the intervening period.
Rousseff should resign forthwith to spare the country the trauma of an impeachment process, and help it overcome both the stalemate in which it is bogged down and the unprecedented calamity of the current administration.
Translated by DAVID COLES
Read the article in the original language
Correction: April 4, 2016
An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to President Dilma Rousseff as the leading player in one of the greatest corruption scandals in Brazil to date; the original text refers to the Workers' Party, not Rousseff herself.