Protests in Brazil – Sem Violência
On Thursday night we saw groups of (mostly) men roaming the streets of Rio without leadership or discipline, indiscriminately committing acts of violence.
If you’ve been following recent events in Rio (and countless other cities in Brazil), you’re probably wondering whether I’m describing the police forces or the minority of protesters who appear to be using these events as an excuse to smash stuff and set fire to things. At times the two groups, supposedly diametrically opposed, have appeared to share many traits.
This morning I arrived at work to see news footage from last night of guys in masks smashing up pretty much anything they could get their hands on. They were pulling down lampposts, setting fire to rubbish, kicking in windows and smashing up banks and shops. Then something that really shocked me – there were a couple of guys smashing in the windows of a bus and then the camera moved to show petrified passengers still trapped inside. Man, that made my blood boil! Some poor old guy was cowering under his chair while this idiot was shattering the windows with a metal bar.
Destroying a bank achieves what exactly? (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano)
But let’s not forget that there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting last night. The vast majority of them had nothing to do with the wanton destruction and spent a lot of time chanting the mantra: Sem violência! Again, it’s telling that this call was directed at both the police and the violent protesters.
And what about the police? I’m no veteran activist, but I’ve been on the odd march (and like the rest of you, I’ve watched the news plenty). One thing I’ve noticed is how easy it is to fall into the mindset that the police are the enemy. Police forces don’t help this perception with heavy-handed crowd control methods such as those seen last Thursday in São Paulo and last night in Rio.
Military Police using pepper spray on a protester in Rio (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano).
But let’s be clear about this – like it or not, we all need a police force. Residents in Barra right now are apparently hiding in their homes while ‘protesters’ carve a path of destruction through the streets (the inverted commas are there to recognise the fact these people sound more like opportunist looters than protesters with a cause – explain to me how smashing a window, bus or shop advances any cause other than nihilist destruction). In fact referring to these people as ‘protesters’ is like calling football hooligans ‘fans’ – the two groups go to the same places but with very different motives.
I’m sorry to sound a defeatist/cynical note, but I have my doubts that any great tangible changes will be delivered in the short term as a result of these protests (I’d love to be wrong about that). But I believe that some medium to long term prizes are possible. By coming out onto the streets in such numbers, Brazilians have demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the status quo and I think this will serve as a standing threat to those in power.
And while the protesters may not be happy with the cost of the upcoming mega-events, the global spotlight that will remain on Brazil right up until 2016 does give protesters a huge amount leverage for their demands. It’s much easier to shame your mum when she’s got guests visiting isn’t it?
I’ll leave you with a video I spotted yesterday – the subordinate policeman is instructed to drive a vehicle at protesters as a way of dispersing them. He repeatedly refuses the order and eventually has his gun taken and is dismissed. Good to see that just as not all protesters are vandals, so not all Military Police follow (bad) orders blindly. This guy deserves a medal.
Did the officer really do something positive? I am not sure. He undermined hierarchy, which is vital to police work, plus he was just ordered to dissuade oncoming protesters with a vehicle; yet specifically told not to attack them. This would support a secondary effort by officers on foot. So I’m not sure he acted so admirably since he hindered strategy that, from what I could understand, did not have malicious intent at all.
So far the best coverage I have seen, especially regarding the police, has been via the link below. Precise and harsh criticism when called for; but without losing sight of the overall reality.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/06/rumblings-belindia
Hmmm, I thought that video started off well and then went a bit downhill. At 3:40 she seems to suggest that the police don’t need extra training – “the police can be very good”. Not sure about that one. And what a bombshell from 4:28: “It’s never good for a government when the people are unhappy” – Pulitzer prize coming her way! ;)
As for the policeman who refused the order, I guess it’s an age old question – when should one follow orders blindly and when should one turn conscientious objector. I think it must be easier to trust in authority when you have confidence that your superiors gained their position through solid training, achievement and meritocratic promotion. In the Brazilian PM? Not so much…
“As for the policeman who refused the order, I guess it’s an age old question – when should one follow orders blindly and when should one turn conscientious objector.”
The problem though is the journalism featured in the post. We are not given any info regarding the oncoming protesters (is the police reacting to a group that has been vandalizing, have they engaged in fighting, or perhaps they’ve been peaceful so far). We see footage of a policeman disobeying an order to use a vehicle to approach a crowd and then turn on his siren so to, along with three other vehicles, dissuade the crowd. Afterwards, if I understood correctly, policemen on foot would come in seeking the same purpose (as featured in the march at the end). In conclusion, the reporter basically uses a recording (that of the officer refusing an order and then being dismissed) and then ends her totally misleading piece of journalism informing that she expects clarifications from the police. So I guess she expects the police to do her job. Anyway, the narrative that remains is that the police is at fault and the dissenting officer is a hero – while his higher up is an animal. Completely unfair.
And I bet there will be no follow up by the reporter or the station she works for since they already got their “groundbreaking” piece on the air. Regardless of if perhaps besmirching someone.
Btw have you seen this (please watch video below until the end and look at what they do to the policeman than trails behind).
Yeah: you’re no going to see this featured on the front page of any major newspaper, nor blog, Anyway how do you know that the police officers in the video you posted weren’t dealing with a mob displaying this kind of behavior and hence wanted to disperse the crowd? And by the audio even planned to do so without attacking them).
http://youtu.be/A2D_9oN7y-M
You’re right, we don’t have the full context to be sure about what was going on before and what went on after the video footage. I make my assumptions based on a few things – firstly, the policeman who refuses the order seems calm and lucid – his commanding officer in contrast seems to have completely lost control.
Secondly, I suspect that refusing the order and thus losing his job (presumably) is in many ways harder than simply following orders and driving the vehicle at the crowd – I interpret this as suggesting that the policeman is taking a moral stand against the order to use a heavy vehicle as a crowd dispersal weapon.
Thirdly, while I agree that the report lacks the depth and details that would have helped corroborate the narrative as they present it, I think that the reporter on the ground would have had considerably more context and understanding of the situation and thus while we were only shown a short clip, I expect that the reporter would have submitted a fuller description of the events which shaped the way that it was presented to the viewers. Unless you have some suspicion that the news programme had some ulterior motive for twisting the footage in favour of the policeman who refused the command.
I had already seen that clip from your second comment and I agree – the violence of the thugs against the police is sickening. I wouldn’t want to be a policeman anywhere – Rio, London or some quiet country village in Sweden. It must be a seriously scary job at times. However, the police force are employed by the state and subject to rules and operating guidelines – even if they suffer terrible violence, they have a duty and a responsibility to maintain control of themselves and work within the law that they are bound to uphold.
If we’re going to talk about what happened before and after the video clip that Tom shared, we should apply the same standard to the one that Gritty shared. I’m not saying that the attack on the policeman was justified, no matter what preceded it, but for all we know, it could have been sparked by unwarranted police violence against the crowd. No, that would not justify the crowd’s behavior, but it would provide context.
We have seen one video clip showing violence directed against the police, but there are many videos and photos showing police violence directed against protesters, reporters, and innocent bystanders.
The notion that the Brazilian press is suppressing or distorting videos and/or reports of crowd violence against the police seems inconsistent with the political bias of the mainstream Brazilian media.
@ Tom,
“I think that the reporter on the ground would have had considerably more context and understanding of the situation and thus while we were only shown a short clip, I expect that the reporter would have submitted a fuller description of the events which shaped the way that it was presented to the viewers.”
You presume that the video you posted was filmed by a reporter from the station; yet here is not indication of that (usually a piece produced by/with a reporter on the ground features the reporter, or at least credits him/her) and then the anchor ends the piece with a brief comment, to then move on to the next piece. So it could just be that not only is context totally lacking but the vid was shot by one of the many bystanders that you can see gathering around the two officers.
@ Phil
“The notion that the Brazilian press is suppressing or distorting videos and/or reports of crowd violence against the police seems inconsistent with the political bias of the mainstream Brazilian media.”
By which means do you conclude that bias of mainstream Brazilian media would lead said media to favor the police in detriment of the protesters? I don’t see that AT ALL.
“If we’re going to talk about what happened before and after the video clip that Tom shared, we should apply the same standard to the one that Gritty shared.”
I never stated the same standard shouldn’t apply I simply pointed out that the TV program – from where the vid for this post that we are now commenting was taken – did not do that in the least bit. It is simply terrible journalism.
Hi Gritty,
This recent item about bias in the Brazilian media is one source, but certainly not the only one that has documented media bias:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/media-bias-in-brazil
One salient quote:
“The article notes that most of the major media is still controlled by the same handful of rich families who supported the military coup against the left government of João Goulart in 1964.”
It’s hard to believe that a media establishment that supported the military coup would now support protesters over the police, but of course it’s possible that they have undergone a radical change in their political outlook. However, any such change has not extended to their endorsements for political campaigns. As the article notes, “not a single major news outlet supports” Dilma.
Nevertheless, bias is in the eye of the beholder, as are allegations of “terrible journalism.” We tend to see what we want to see.
Here’s a link to the LATimes article about bias in the Brazilian media. There’s a link to it in the article I mentioned above, but it’s always good to link directly to the original source:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/03/world/la-fg-brazil-hostile-media-20130304
The article reports that “the media still reflect the values of the old-school elite, with very, very few exceptions.”
Granted, this is a quote from a media specialist at USP, and he may have *his* own biases. But then, don’t we all? :)
“Nevertheless, bias is in the eye of the beholder, as are allegations of “terrible journalism.” We tend to see what we want to see.”
I don’t think the issue here is what side you are on but the poor excuse for journalism put forth to create a narrative. It isn’t that we tend to see what we want; it is that at least we should see somethng that adheres to basic guidelines of reporting (to then wander off to each of own biases if we choose to so do). Anyway the reporting is atrocious, and to add insult to injury the genius anchor asks to police to provide clarifications. What a joke. I would like to see the police send a public relations officer over there and provide them with the most bizarre narrative. It would be funny just for the sake of revealing that the crap tv station can’t even prove them wrong because they weren’t there in the first place (which did not keep them form featuring a video which induces you to see the higher up as a demon and the dissenting officer as a hero, and the demonstrators as victims which our hero strives to preserve).
In the end everyone can look for ulterior motives behind this. My money in this specific case is not on biases or conspiracies, just on a crap tv station made up of incompetent journalists not doing their jobs properly.
I enjoyed O Globo’s Sem Fronteiras report on the protests (and no, I wouldn’t expect O Globo to have something wise to say but…).
http://globotv.globo.com/globo-news/sem-fronteiras/v/milhares-tomam-as-ruas-do-brasil-em-sete-dias-de-protesto-que-entraram-para-a-historia/2646682/
Also, while I support change via protesting, part of the protests are about people protesting hugely-expensive stadium costs right when the stadiums are being opened…not when they were starting to be built, not when they were financed, and not even when they were being planned (pre-financing).
Yeah, the horse has well and truly bolted – too late to get your money back now. That said, I think people are still entitled to be angry – according to Forbes, the estimate given at the pre-finance stage was less than $1 billion – that has risen to $3.5 billion.
Eu acho os protestos justos e importantes, mas quando a população sai as ruas sem realmente ter um foco ou uma proposta, eles são estão sendo usados como massa de manobra.
Se os manifestantes estão contra a corrupção que digam isso, ou contra a PEC 37 que digam isso também. Mas a maneira como isso esta sendo conduzido me parece que eles estão contra o mundo, não tem um foco e por isso estão sendo usados.
Essa situação me lembra 1964, e as marcha pela Família antes do golpe militar, assim como os jovens de 1964 os manifestantes de hoje estão ser usados novamente.
Nós somos ou deveriamos ser uma democracia, como pessoas protestando numa democracia, podem dizer que são apartidarios ou contra partidos politicos. O unico tipo de gorverno que não precisa de partidos politicos é uma ditadura…..
Se esses jovens, simpatizam com o PSTU, PSOL, PSDB, DEM etc. Eles deveriam assumir isso, cada um tem direito a simpatizar com o partido que quiser, mas quando eles defendem um Brasil “sem partidos” o que eles estão na verdade pedindo é uma ditadura.
E também, quem protesta cobrindo o rosto ou usando mascaras (uma minoria), não quer protestar mas sim quer baderna.
Essa minoria destruiu predios historicos, e todo tipo de patrimonio publico. Saquearam logicas e agrediram policiais e outras pessoas que estavam protestando pacificamente. E muitas dessas mesmas pessoas que agiram como bandidos reclamam na atuação da policia.
Oi Anna! Eu concordo – precisamos partidos. Acho que a grita “sem partidos” é uma rejeção de todos os partidos que existem agora. O que eu queria ver é um partido novo criado destes protestos. Acho a força de toda essa indignação será perdido e desperdiçado se coisas continuam sem foco. Precisam líderes e porta-vozes para comunicar suas mensagens e demandas de forma mais clara (e também a distanciar-se das ações de extremistas).
Number one. I wouldn’t be surprised to hazard a guess that some of these ‘vandals’ are bought ‘agent provocateurs’. That doesn’t take a genius to work out.
Hey Claire, yep, the thought had occurred.
Reports are that over a million people took part in protests on Thursday night. There is no excuse for violence, whether it’s perpetrated by protesters, looters, or the police. However, with that many people in the streets, the probability is that there will be some level of violence.
The organizers of the protests risk losing support every time there is violence carried out by civilians, even if it’s committed by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the protests. The challenge for any movement that relies on protests is to maintain order and discipline among the ranks. This challenge is magnified when there is no political party structure to enforce such discipline. People like to ridicule or dismiss political parties (often with good reason), but a party structure can serve a useful purpose when it comes to mobilizing large groups.
If the protesters do not wish to align themselves with an existing Brazilian political party, they should consider forming a party of their own. Otherwise, they run the risk of losing control over the protests and alienating the very citizens whose support they must have in order to be effective.
Good point Phil. I was watching people chanting Sem partido! earlier and I agree it’s important/significant that this hasn’t been a party political thing so far, but even relatively small groups need leadership and direction if they want to drive change.
I think it was necessary for the protests to begin with a rejection of existing political parties in order to assure participants that they were not being used as pawns by the very people against whose power they are protesting. But I’m not sure how long that’s going to be viable.
In the US, Occupy Wall Street spurned any party affiliation, and eventually died out. The Tea Party movement, on the other hand, managed to become an integral part of the Republican Party, thereby allowing its adherents to become a significant force in American politics (and in the process, bringing the US government to the brink of economic disaster on more than one occasion, but that’s a separate story).
The lesson seems to be clear: if a movement wants to achieve its goals, it needs to figure out a way to integrate itself into the existing political system. It’s a positive sign that the transit fare hikes have been rescinded, and if that was all that the protesters were going for, their mission has been accomplished. Unfortunately, there is no assurance that there won’t be a future rate hike, when politicians feel that things have calmed down.
Don’t be too defeatist/dispirited, Mate – the retrenching of the fare hike was an amazingly swift U-turn.
You’re absolutely right Jonathan – Mrs Eat Rio and I were talking about this last night after I’d written the post. As you say, many people (and I admit I’ve probably fallen into this trap) seem to have forgotten that the fare u-turn was actually a big deal. In all the excitement of everyone saying “it’s not about 20 cents”, I think people forgot that 20 cents actually is a big deal in itself. And it’s not just 20 cents is it? For most people it’s 40 cents (you’re going and coming back right?) – 40 cents per person, per day. If I think back to my days in the UK, it is a massively big deal when they add a couple of pennies to the rate of income tax and we don’t all dismiss it saying “it’s just 2p” do we?