Dilma Rousseff was impeached and removed from office at the
end of August, 2016. The state’s senate voted 61-20 to convict her on charges
that she used illegal bookkeeping maneuvers to hid a growing budget deficit.[1]
Her defense that she did not enrich herself through public office—that she did
not steal public money for her own account—can be regarded as an attempt to
deflect the legislators from the existing charges.[2]
Only 56 legislators were necessary for a two-thirds majority. Given the
problems of hyperinflation and fiscal mismanagement, including a growing public
debt, her offenses were “deemed an impeachable crime.”[3]
Although Brazil was hardly the only country where the chief executive has sought
under political pressure to make a budget deficit look smaller than it actually
was, enforcing deterring consequences even just in this case is laudable—while
other, partisan motives, detracted from the vote’s legitimacy.
In a representative democracy, the popular sovereign—the
People—have a right and interest in getting accurate deficit figures from their
government. Put another way, accounting gimmicks have no place in a republic.
Rousseff’s impeachment and removal from office would be inappropriate, however,
to the extent that the legislators were motivated by partisanship or even
displeasure as to the government’s economic performance. The point of having
terms of office is to insulate office holders so they can enact painful
measures that are nonetheless needed, such as efforts to reduce the debt. Not even
something less than success with deficits warrants removal of office, for
elections serve that purpose without compromising the institution of a term of
office.
In Brazil, Rousseff’s administration “had come under
pressure over a brutal recession.”[4]
According to the Wall Street Journal, many people believed that “Rousseff’s
fall had less to do with the official charges than her mishandling of South
America’s largest economy, which moved from 7.6% GDO growth in 2010, when she
was first elected, to the worst downturn since the Great Depression in her
second term.”[5] The economy contracted by 3.8% in 2015 and
was expected to shrink another 3.2% in 2016.[6]
Pressure to remove her out of attribution of the economic decline to her
policies should not have been a factor in the impeachment vote because bad
policies, or even becoming unpopular, is not criminal in nature. Sen. Cristovam
Buarque of the Popular Socialist Party was wrong, therefore, when he declared,
“Impeachment isn’t only about a crime. There is also a government without
support in [the legislature] and without a path for the economy.”[7]
At the very least, his vote to impeach the president was misguided and thus
stained.
Being implicated in the “massive corruption scandal at the
state oil company,” however, could justify impeachment.[8]
Rousseff was indeed damaged by the scandal, as she had headed Petrobra’s board
of directors when much of the illegal activity occurred. Petrobras wrote off
nearly $30 billion in 2014 and 2015—much of it due to bribes and inflated
contracts.[9]
Yet did she know of these at the time? A subsequent investigation found no
evidence that she personally benefitted from the big-rigging and bribery
scandal in which politicians and contractors colluded to loot billions from the
giant oil company.[10]
Of course, this does not mean that she did not go along with the schemes. Given
the magnitude of money involved, it is hard to believe that the chair of the
board would be oblivious and thus guilt-free.
Regardless of the question of her tacit approval of the
corruption, that the scandal “splintered her political base and devastated her
popular support” should not have fed into the vote against her.[11]
That such a political loss during a term
of office would make it easier for legislators to vote against her is
something they should resist, for otherwise the vote becomes merely a partisan
opportunity to change the parties in power.
Her removal did indeed end 13 years in which her Workers’
Party was in power. Such a political feat as removing such a longstanding party
means a partisan motive could indeed have contributed to the 61-20 result.
Before the vote, her “political enemies hailed her looming removal “as a rebuke
to the leftist tide that swept across many South American countries in the
early 2000s.”[12]
The use of an impeachment vote to make such a rebuke is not appropriate because
the impeachment device is supposed to deal with criminal activity such as
deliberately misstating budget-deficit numbers. That Sen. Ronaldo Caiado of the
Democrats Party said the “ouster was a repudiation [of] the Workers’ Party”
suggests that the impeachment mechanism was used inappropriately. In short,
Caiado was confusing an election with an impeachment.
[1]
Paulo Trevisani and Reed Johnson, “Brazilian President Rousseff Ousted,” The Wall Street Journal, September 1,
2016.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Ibid.
