Much remains to be won in Brazil

Sunday night’s Confederations Cup victory for Brazil came at a time when the country’s people needed lifting, as tensions continued to spill into the streets in protests verging on riots. I mean to take nothing away from the national side’s victory; the likes of Neymar, David Luiz and Julio Cesar were spectacular in their performances against a titanic, albeit drained, Spain team. They served the Spanish reigning World and European champions their first competitive defeat since 2010, and made them look very ordinary in the process. One can have no doubts that the social movement taking place in Brazil had a role to play in inspiring the team’s brilliant triumph, but it is crucial that Brazilians don’t allow the on-field success to divert their attention from off-field battles that are frankly more important.

They began as protests against a rise in transport fares in major cities across Brazil, but with that price hike being rescinded on 19 June, and protests continuing right through the tournament, including a relatively small clash with police outside the Maracanã on Sunday night, it is clear there are many issues still to be resolved for the protesters.

It is unsurprising that a lot of these issues were united under a banner of hatred for FIFA, who occupied Brazil for two weeks in their trial run for the 2014 World Cup, which the country ‘won’ the right to host in October 2007. The reality of the situation is that they were pencilled in as hosts by Sepp Blatter’s organisation long before that date.

In March 2003, FIFA announced that it would begin a practice of rotating the host nation between confederations, with South Africa – who had controversially and narrowly missed out on the 2006 World Cup – to host in 2010, and a South American country to host the 2014 event. By March 2004, the CONMEBOL associations had voted unanimously to name Brazil as their sole candidate. In July 2006 Blatter admitted that Brazil would likely host the event, but stressed that the country did not yet have any stadia that were of an acceptable standard.  Two months later, Brazil’s then President Lula announced that they would need to build at least 12 new stadiums. This was then coupled with the pledge that no public funds would go towards the building of the stadiums, which is where the problems began. Construction delays forced the government to step in with funds to make sure the work would be completed in time for the first billing of their World Cup and Olympic double-header, breaking their promise to the public in the process. 

FIFA and its partners enjoy complete tax exemption for a period that extends beyond the start and end of the World Cup (a condition of every hosting bid). And while it is true that FIFA is not responsible for Brazil’s government reneging on their pledge regarding public funds, it is also true that FIFA’s policy of continental host rotation (which has since been scrapped) somewhat forced Brazil into hosting an event they might otherwise not have bid for. 

Nevertheless, spending public money on the stadia was a government decision that could have been avoided (but cannot be reversed), and one that, with substandard education and health services in desperate need of funding, was never likely to escape retaliation. President Dilma Rousseff has responded to the protests by pledging 75% of the government’s future petroleum royalties to education, the other 25% to healthcare.

Another stimulus for discontent has been the pervasive corruption of Brazilian politics that has persistently gone unpunished. Natan Donadon, a congressman who three years ago was convicted of siphoning off $4m from the State Assembly in Rondonia, became the first serving congressman to be jailed since military rule ended in 1985, when he was arrested last Wednesday. The Brazilian public will hope this is the first of many such cases, and recent developments indicate that may yet come to fruition. On 25 June the National Chamber revoked PEC-37 , a bill which if passed would have limited the investigative powers of independent public prosecutors and thus, many believed, made it harder to tackle the corruption that has plagued Brazilian politics for too long. The following day they officially gave recognition to all forms of corruption and embezzlement as heinous crimes, increasing the minimum sentence for the former from two to four years, and doing away with the possibility of parole or amnesty that has allowed so many to walk free in the past.

Since 2004 Brazil has been one of the world’s fastest growing economies, and it is now one of the ten largest in the world (similar in size to the United Kingdom’s – though with triple the population). However its GINI coefficient (a measure of income inequality – where 100 represents perfect inequality and 0 represents perfect equality), despite steadily decreasing yearly from 60.13 in 2001 to 54.69 in 2009, remains one of the highest and most unequal in the world. One place where this inequality is most visible is in the country’s favelas, and it is here that one of the biggest human rights crimes relating to the upcoming megaevents has been committed. 

Some of Rio de Janeiro’s favelas stand in the way of the government’s blueprint for the Olympic games, and the consequences of this fact have been severe. It is a common misconception that the word favela translates to ‘slum’, but in reality a favela is simply a neighbourhood that historicallly was not served by public works; the result of the occupation of free land. After a period of squatting the occupants should be constitutionally granted land titles, but in practice this rarely occurs. However the residents of Vila Autódromo, a favela that lies very close to the planned Olympic venues, were granted these rights in 1990, which has very much complicated the government’s plans to demolish it. They have constructed new homes for the community at the Parque Carioca development, but the majority understandably don’t want to leave homes they built with their own hands, and land they fought so hard to win ownership over. The residents of other favelas such as Tanque and Favela do Metrô aren’t so lucky and, yet to be recognised as the legal owners of the land, are being forcibly evicted. Many have been given ultimatums and, lacking the legal awareness or clout to fight their corner, bullied into accepting paltry compensation (certainly not enough to buy a new home). It is not unheard of for residents to be given less than 24 hours warning before bulldozers tear down the walls they once lived within. Such behaviour is not acceptable anywhere in the world, and while human rights groups have tried to intervene, in most cases the efforts of resistance have come too late.

Brazil is a country that through its success has become synonymous with football, so protesters’ decision to turn FIFA’s World Cup warm-up into a soapbox of sorts has been moving, calling attention to the dire condition of their welfare state and the political system that perpetuates it. Brazilian lawmakers and the international media have certainly sat up, but after everyone who came for the Confederations Cup has left and the dust has settled, how far will the country move forward? The progress that has been made so far is encouraging, but I fear that their most recent footballing accomplishment might slow the roll. It remains to be seen how the policy changes that are taking shape will impact the country’s inequalities and injustices in years to come.

2014 is of importance not only because of the World Cup; October brings an election that will see President Dilma Rousseff attempting to win a second term in office. Sceptics will suggest that her swift response to the protests of late is nothing more than the first push of a long campaign. The public needs to remain vigilant, taking care to distinguish between policies serving only to appease voters, and those genuinely intended to bring about positive change in their society. FIFA’s official slogan for the 2014 World Cup is ‘juntos num só ritmo’ (all in one rhythm), but it would serve well as a summary of the social movement that provided a backdrop to this year’s Confederations Cup. One hopes that the tempo will not slow over the next twelve months, and that the drummers truly have the people’s interests at heart.