Are Brazilians capable of organising a Mega-Event?
Vanessa Barbara
Yesterday I stumbled across an article in the New York Times, Brazil Is Tired of Being Scolded, which takes issue with the criticism that FIFA and the IOC have been directing at Brazil recently. The article’s author, Vanessa Barbara, is upset with what she sees as the condescending tone from ‘Mummy’ (FIFA) and ‘Daddy’ (IOC), and quips that Brazil may soon be grounded by its ‘parents’.
Well, I guess patriotism can make us all say strange things from time to time, but for me, this article is not only incoherent, but also rather depressing.
Incoherent
Barbara appears to be taking all this criticism very personally, while at the same time listing all the failings and injustices that the people of Brazil have suffered at the hands of their incompetent government. Now I’m no fan of FIFA or the IOC, but the criticism they are making is not of the Brazilian nation/people – it’s of the organisers of these events, in other words the government.
So although she rightly points out that the people of Brazil have suffered at the hands of their own government during the preparations for the World Cup (evictions, embezzlement, etc), Barbara objects to criticism that comes from outside. An example of “I’ll criticise my family, but you better keep your mouth shut!”. Does she really love Brazil’s politicians so much that she won’t allow outsiders to criticise them?
Depressing
The depressing thing about this article is that it seems to be reinforcing the boorish stereotype that inefficiency/ineptitude is some kind of immutable characteristic of the Brazilian people. I’m paraphrasing here, but at one point she essentially says: “If you wanted it done properly you should have got the Germans to do it”.
Seriously? Why not just wave a white flag and say “Brazilians can’t do stuff like this properly so stop giving us a hard time”? The author complains about being treated like a child while simultaneously taking the attitude of a petulant teenager.
To pick-up this ‘Brazil-is-a-child’ metaphor, if you’re getting bad grades at school, do you complain that the teacher is ‘being mean and condescending’ or do you reassess your study methods, get your head down and try to improve?
Rather than being defensive because some (admittedly despicable) international sporting organisations criticise your country’s woefully disorganised preparations, why not demand more of your politicians? While I don’t agree with this “Don’t come to Brazil” stance that a minority of Brazilians have taken, I think the people who are getting out and protesting against the waste and corruption of the games are being entirely rational.
Carla Dauden, the star of that video.
Sure you can’t get the money back, and yes, Vai ter Copa sim (there will be a World Cup – that ship sailed a long time ago) but in a situation where corrupt politicians are repeatedly re-elected, protests are a way to tell those responsible that, for future reference, their corruption and ineptitude is unacceptable.
[expand title=”Vai ter Copa?”]
[/expand]
So, can Brazilians organise a Mega-Event?
I’d be lying to you if I said I thought Brazilians have the same work-ethic that you see in stereotypically ‘efficient’ countries. Decades of bureaucracy and corruption have led to jeitinho becoming commonplace – people cut corners, ‘patch things up’ instead of fixing them properly, show up late for work. It’s actually a pretty natural response – if the people running the system are all cheating, why play by the rules?
I believe that Brazilians are capable of organising something like the World Cup or Olympic Games, but in the current situation they’re finding it hard to do make a good job of it. The problem isn’t with the Brazilian people, but with the Brazilian politicians and the system over which they preside. So instead of asking the outside world to stop criticising, why not join in and demand more?
**UPDATE**
It’s been suggested (by the author no less!) that the original article printed in the New York Times was an attempt at irony. I don’t think it really works as satire but if anyone wants to explain it to me, fire away in the comments section!
Boy, does this resonate with me and the parallels I see in Costa Rica. The thing is not “can THEY (Brazilians or Costa Ricans) do this” — it’s how do you find the people with the right skills and get them into the right positions? When I moved to CR and worked in a local software company, I saw absolutely brilliant people around me. At that time I thought, put 1 smart Costa Rican analyst in a room and it’ll take 3 regular Americans to match the efficiency and output. That viewpoint was based on the 10+ years I worked in software development in the US.
However, I have yet to see that caliber of brainpower in the government. Plus, in general, that “jetinho” attitude is stronger in this culture. So it just seems like a huge dichotomy, with the intertia of a general cultural trait being set in stark contrast to the mindpower (and necessary ingenuity) of some of its citizens.
The one thing I believe strongly is that everyone needs to move away from this idea that Brazilians (or Costa Ricans for that matter) simply can’t change. Anyone who believes that might as well give up now!
Really. Costa Rica is riding a jet pack of change, at least technology-wise.
I read that piece too and thought it was written as satire. Do you think she was serious? For me the comments from readers were quite funny, as I thought they had missed the ironic nature of the piece.
Hey Si. Hmmm, you could be right – I have to say I didn’t pick it up as satire at all, although on face value it does seem to be such a preposterous article that I guess it must be. She’s reprinted the article on her site and in response to a few negative comments she says “Irony, people. Irony. That’s a nice figure of speech”.
So I guess she was joking? I don’t think her sarcasm came across in the article at all and from what I can see, very few people picked up on this ‘irony’ of hers. Still, it’s reassuring to hear that she’s not quite that crazy…
To continue the metaphor, I’d respond to this girl’s editorial by saying, “If you don’t want to be treated like a child, stop acting like one.”
OK I just read through her article again and it’s annoying me even more. First, she totally abuses the “we” pronoun. Who is she talking about? The Brazilian population? The Brazilian government? Brazilian protestors? Brazilian businesses?
Second, there’s no real ARGUMENT or clear assertion/opinion there. All I really got out of it was, “stop talking bad about us! Harumph! Now I’m going to say a bunch of bad things about the country and accidentally prove FIFA and the IOC right, except I’m not, because I’m allowed to say bad things and they aren’t.” This attitude irritates me to no end!
And what is her last comment, exactly? A failed attempt at a dig at the American government? It doesn’t even make sense.
I think she needs an academic writing class.
Ha ha ha! Yeah, it’s not a good piece is it? I’m actually really surprised the NYT printed it. Taken on face value it’s infuriating and nonsensical. Taken as some kind of satirical comment it is slightly less infuriating, but just as nonsensical! :) What exactly was this satirical point she was trying to make?
One more thing. She said that 22 years ago, she signed a petition and worked toward cleaning up Tietê. I have a feeling she is exaggerating on a school project. 22 years ago, she would’ve been, what? 8 years old?
Yeah, all those random, irrelevant details are what make the article seem heartfelt – how do they work as satire?
Basically the whole piece just doesn’t hang together, whether it’s taken as satire or not.
I have a different take on it, though I can understand why people are bothered what she wrote. I read it after I read Tom’s blog entry, so I think I read it with a critical eye, but I still felt that it was intended to be at least somewhat satirical. However, I think she was serious about her resentment about the comments from the IOC and FIFA officials, and I don’t blame her.
I have felt that most of the negative comments from the IOC and FIFA were naive, out of line, and non-productive. The committees that selected Brazil should have been well aware of the entrenched bureaucracy. It’s not as if it’s a secret, and it’s not as if it is something new. Nor is it a secret that things can take a bit longer than in some other countries. I had to laugh at her remark about holding the events in Germany or Switzerland if punctuality were the main goal, because I thought the same thing when I read some of the IOC/FIFA comments.
But the committees chose Brazil, and at least part of the reason probably had to do with the “friendliness and cheerfulness” that Ms. Barbara mentions in her column. I know these are stereotypes, and I know that friendliness and cheerfulness do not preclude efficiency, but the same laid-back atmosphere that may have appealed to the selection committees is now causing the officials some distress. Did they really expect that Brazil was going to miraculously transform itself in just a few years?
Finally, I think it’s risky to direct all of the blame for all of the problems associated with the Cup and the Olympic games at political leaders, and to Ms. Barbara’s credit, she does not do this. It has become fashionable for citizens in the western democracies to complain about the politicians and governments they elect, as if these leaders were imposed upon us by some mysterious, unseen, malevolent power. This trend has gotten so out of control in the US that it has contributed to the polarization and thus the gridlock in Washington. Even worse, many people feel that by complaining, they have fulfilled their civic duty and they don’t need to do anything more. (The demonstrations that took place in Brazil a year ago were noteworthy exceptions to this trend). Since we elect these politicians ourselves, when we complain about them, we are really complaining about ourselves, our fellow citizens, and maybe even our culture. And while it’s OK for *us* to complain about all those things, none of us likes it when someone from another country does it. That was what I took to be Ms. Barbara’s main point.
Hi Phil – I’m not sure I can really go along with this idea that the blame is with FIFA and the IOC because they knew what they were getting in to. Does that mean that every time the Brazilian government (or games organising committee/CBF, etc) make a promise/commitment, the rest of the world should assume they’re wildly over-promising and add in an extra generous contingency period?
Pitching for a major event involves making a commitment to do what you promise you’re going to do. Whether the promises were made by the CBF or private corporations, this is an international event which involved huge amounts of public investment and so the buck ultimately stops with the Brazilian government. It was their responsibility to oversee the planning, to award the contracts and to ensure that deadlines were met.
I know what you’re saying about this attitude of “let’s sit back and blame the government”. But like you say, the protests last year were a promising sign that, given the right circumstances, Brazilians were willing to take a real stand. I think many, many Brazilians feel that most/all of their politicians are untrustworthy and incompetent – it’s not uncommon to see the graffiti “Vote nulo”. I wish that instead of imploring people to vote for no one, someone would stand up and offer a real alternative based on progressive values and integrity. I know that last sentence sounds painfully naive, but still…
Tom, if I gave the impression that I blame FIFA and the IOC for Brazil’s slow progress and abandoned projects, I didn’t express myself well, since that was not my intent. My problem with both organizations is that they have done this before: the IOC made public statements about the lack of preparedness in Sochi and Greece, and FIFA did the same thing with South Africa. In all three cases, things went off better than expected, which I believe is what will happen in Brazil.
At some point, one has to wonder about the competence of the people making these selections, or the selection process itself. Once the choice is made, I believe that FIFA and the IOC should avoid making public comments that are negative, unless the host country is being completely uncooperative. Recent stories (officially denied by the IOC) that there were contingency plans to hold the Olympics in London, “just in case” Brazil didn’t come through, didn’t help matters (though it’s an interesting concept that the IOC may want to adopt next time around, since they seem to face this problem with alarming frequency).
If the comments from FIFA and IOC end up having served a purpose, then I will gladly stand corrected, but my guess is that they are only making things worse. There’s a lot to be said for quiet diplomacy or even some behind-the-scenes arm-twisting, if that’s what it takes. The public criticisms make everyone look bad.
I also agree with you that the “vote nulo” option is not the answer (for a while, “none of the above” was popular in the US). I see these as lame excuses for apathy. Being politically aware takes time, and many people find it easier to sit back and sneer from the sidelines. Making informed decisions and then getting to the polling place also requires some effort, and my sense is that a lot of people would rather complain than make that effort.
Nice one Phil, I agree :) It seems that serious reform is desperately needed in both FIFA and the IOC – their blatant acceptance/encouragement of bribes in just one aspect in which money has come to completely overshadow their purported values. How else can one explain the sponsorship deals with fast food companies that allow aggressive marketing of food of dubious nutritional value to the exclusion of healthier alternatives that reflect the local culture?
I’ve heard the argument that these extravaganzas aren’t possible without the enormous sponsorship deals that only fast-food companies can provide, but personally I’m fine with that. Do we really need multi-million dollar opening ceremonies with fireworks and all that stuff? Why not take it back to grass-roots and concentrate on the sport? Again, I’m sure that’s a massively naive idea, but surely this system that relies on so much construction and investment can’t go on indefinitely?
Great comment by Phil.
I have been against hosting these events from the.start. When pathetic Lula sat there crying like a sentimental fool after Rio was awarded the games all I could see was an insecure teenager happy that he would finally be able to prove all detractors wrong (instead of asking himself if it is a good idea for the country he represents to host the games at all). Most people where with him though, and Mrs. Barbara’s piece reflects how said people react now that things have gone to hell. And this horsewash about the role of the American ambassador in the 1964 coup, I mean for heaven’s sake it has been well established that not only did the United States not motivate the coup but also did nothing to assist the perpetrators during execution. This because a majority of the Brazilian populace where in favor of toppling Goulart. So, even if you support Goulart on this issue (or if you despise Goulart but think democracy was hindered by the coup) then you should blame the Brazilian people and not some ambassador. What a child! I am actually surprised she failed to mention the Portuguese and cast some blame on them as well, or use the oldest scapegoat in the Western world: jews.
All in all I think it was a really strange piece from start to finish – I’m told she’s an excellent writer in Portuguese and I can only think that she was aiming for something quite different to what she eventually produced.
Gritty, in fairness, neither Ms. Barbara nor anyone who has commented here so far has written any “horsewash about the role of the American ambassador in the 1964 coup.” Ms. Barbara reported that “Fifty years ago, after President João Goulart was deposed by a right-wing military coup, the American presence in our political scene was so conspicuous that a humorist announced a mock-campaign for the United States ambassador: ‘Enough of middlemen — Lincoln Gordon for president!'” That’s all. She made no allegations about actions by the US government before, during, or after the coup.
Information from previously classified US government documents not only supports what she said, but shows an even greater role, as can be seen and heard here:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB118/
The evidence raises questions about your statement that “it has been well established that not only did the United States not motivate the coup but also did nothing to assist the perpetrators during execution.” I’m not saying your statement is wrong, but based on the facts, reasonable people can reach different conclusions. In any case, neither Ms. Barbera nor anyone here made such claims in the first place, and it’s really not fair to criticize them for something that they never did.
Phil,
Interesting info via that link: thanks for sharing.
Not only Gordon`s telegrams confirm US active backing of the coup but a recent testimony on Comissão da Verdade from an ex-colonel (Erimá Pinheiro Moreira) claims they went as far as bribing Brazillian generals such as Amaury Kruel (who Goulart considered one of his only allies in the army).
Also, public opinion was not against Goulart. IBOPE files recently undisclosed show a landslide approval of his government and economic policies by the population. He could not run for reelection anymore, but the same polls say he would have won. The hate campaign was running rampant in the whole press, though, with few exceptions.
Don`t get me wrong… With or without US support, brazilian military were plotting coups since the end of Vargas second term in 1954. Also, despite widespread people`s approval and rampant misinformation by the media, there also was popular oposition to Goulart. But some say US backing had an important influence in the military resolve and in Goulart`s decision to leave office without a fight.
On a positive note it has been reported that the Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) saved taypayers 600 million bucks due to their scrutiny. And the scolding the journalist complains about sent a clear signal to Brazilian society that if you want to be taken seriously then you must change (yet what an expensive lesson it was).
problem I have with this article is that it repeats the same analysis everyone else does: it’s all just the govt’s fault.
Fact is–it’s not just the govt. Brazil is actually run by large ranchers and big corporations–all of whom control and are part of the govt.
In fact–the govt never intended to take control of planning over these big events. They were all supposed to have been paid for by private corporations–and all run by the CBF.
However, the CBF and private businesses proved incompetent, wasteful and corrupt–and refused to pay for the costs they’d initially promised to. That’s why planning and organizing both events have been so late. The govt took awhile to respond. The govt did not want to expand the host cities to 12 – that was the corrupt CBF’s decision because the powerful rich elites in the north insisted.
The use of public monies for organizing both events is due to the CBF’s and private businesses’ refusal to fulfill their promises.
She does mention the government critically at one point, but she also mentions two court decision which exposed corruption, one of them involving businessmen.
Your comments are instructive and from what I know of Brazilian history, the influence of big ranchers and corporations in Brazilian politics and government is also nothing new.
Hi Sandra – my understanding of the relationship between the big ranchers and related businesses is that they are so interwoven with government that it goes without saying that when we stay “government” we are also talking about the businesses and lobby groups that have such a huge say in how the government acts.
So some of the promises were made (and broken) by CBF and private corporations. But much of the investment came from public money and that is the responsibility of the government to spend wisely. If they award contracts to private businesses and then the private businesses fail/go over budget/steal some of the money, are we really going to blame the private businesses and stop at that?
If you’re saying that public money was only required because the CBF/private corporations broke their promises, then again, I say that the buck ultimately stops with the Brazilian government, quite simply because it was entirely foreseeable that 1) the promises might not be delivered and 2) in the case that the promises weren’t delivered then the government would have to step in (which surprise surprise, they did).
If we take the line of reasoning from Phil’s first comment, that FIFA/IOC knew what they were getting into (i.e. that Brazil isn’t as efficient as some other countries), then what about the Brazilian government? Surely they should know even better than FIFA that the CBF and private companies were likely to over-promise and under-deliver.
So proximate blame can be laid with the CBF and private businesses, but the ultimate blame goes to the government.
Do you really think that big ranchers and Brazilian businesses swayed FIFA to award Brazil the World Cup? They must have been sending the IOC prize livestock in order to obtain the Olympics. C´mon. Brazil´s financial ability to finance these events was a must., In other words even if everything went wrong the host country would be able to dole out the cash to get things done (which is what happened in the end). Do you really think Lula and party were led astray by farmers and corporations to do this or was this just a grand opportunity which the Brazilian government, now with the financial clout thanks to everything Cardoso did and PT tried to block (and one thing Cardoso DID NOT DO was waste billions on bogus events) or is it possible that the PT
government cashed in on two mega events handing out contracts to members of the private sector if they wished to comply – knowing that the treasury could expense these costs on its own in case they were unable to convince the good old boys get on board (which is why FIFA awarded the cup to Brazil regardless of that nations governamental well known incompetence of getting things done).
Don´t use cliches (farmers, aristocrats, evil elite, yap yap, yap) that go down well when trying to grab hippie chicks or impress enlightened foreigners in order to explain the fiasco of hosting the World Cup and the Olympics, It is better to just observe the obvious: a government seized an opportunity to cash in on two mega events and thought Brazilians would buy it due to their need to prove to foreigners that they too are “world class”; but said government was so incompetent and corrupt that they managed to give said insecure crowd a wake up call.
Hardly anyone believes the old class warfare BS about evil and obscure elites being the cause behind
the incredible waste these events represent. If you first supported the terrible, terrible idea of paying for the World Cup and the Olympics don´t blame an US ambassador in 1964, nor a farmer or a so called evil corporation for enticing a government to bid for these events (ridiculous). Blame the government, and yourself for getting on board with the idea. Grow up.
Gritty, I respectfully suggest that phrases like “cliches…that go down well when trying to grab hippie chicks or impress enlightened foreigners” and references to “the old class warfare BS” and “evil and obscure elites” are mis-characterizations of what Sandra wrote.
It’s unclear whether your last couple of sentences (“Blame the government, and yourself for getting on board with the idea. Grow up.”) are directed at Sandra, Ms. Barbara, or the Brazilian people, but it really doesn’t matter. Advising someone with whom you disagree to “Grow up” is condescending, and some might find it offensive. You and I have had enough civil exchanges in the past that I’m sure that could not have been your intent, but that’s how it sounded.
I agree with you Phil, sorry about that.
Btw has anyone read this http://blogs.estadao.com.br/jamil-chade/2014/05/29/nova-iorque-diz-nao-aos-jogos-olimpicos/
Thanks for your reply and for the link, Gritty. That is a very interesting article and I think that New York has the right idea. And Tom’s idea about having an Olympics that is more about the athletes and less about huge spectacular bread-and-circus productions is also right on track.
Hi Tom you reason insightfully. I see something similar in Spain and my feeling is there´s still a little leftover feeling of inferiority that plagued a previous generation due to international isolation under the dictatorship.
I hold my hand up as I fell into the trap of criticising when i arrived – the Spanish are…..
Without a doubt the Spanish institutions are not working well and have caused people to circumnavigate them. The only answer is to change these from within via the people / citizens voting and pressurising governments and parties.
Now i follow your line to say we can change and highlight past achievements in conversations to show change is possible and change a negative dynamic through positive reinforcement (basic psychology).
You have to do it carefully so not to be a pain “pesado” but i try and meet a negative dynamic with a positive one of we can change, we´ve done it in the past and we´ll do it again.
Tom the food, social and cultural commentator / philosopher!