A collage of images, featuring most prominently a person holding a sign reading "no justice no peace"

Author: Katarina Pitasse Fragoso

General

 by 

Lessons from the Brazilian elections

Picture by acf.view
Picture by acf.view (https://instagram.com/acf.view?mdxt=aHg3NDg5MHJ5cWhq)

Brazil is at the second round of the election for President. My country is divided again by Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro supporters, who is the son of  Jair Bolsonaro.

In the first round, Deputes, Senators and Governors are chosen. In a surprise that shocked many, the extreme right wing, came out on top. Of the 81 seats in the Senate, Balsonaro’s Parido Liberal (PL), got 21, while Lula’s Work Party  (PT) only  6. PL has 121 elected candidates for Federal Deputy, which is the highest number achieved by a unique party since our democratic constitution was founded in 1988. PL also did best of any party in elections for State Governors in Brazil, with 5 so far, only in the first round.

Bolsonaro’s PL are, as many newspapers have confirmed, the biggest party at the moment, an electoral phenomenon. Behind this political phenomenon is a highly conservative agenda. It differs from conservatism of the Global North, which is obsessed with immigration, but in Bolsonaro’s case it is an attack on Brazilians: the poor; the Black population; indigenous people, women, the LGBTQIA+ community. It is an agenda against, social inclusion, to sum up in a simple phrase, Promising to transform Brazil by ending of the corruption and criminality, the majority of the Brazilian population have chosen the most corrupt, elitist, and criminal politicians in our history.

Just for a quick example, of many, Flavio Bolsonaro is himself involved in many schemes of money laundering, membership of a criminal organisation and violence.

Why are Brazilians are voting for such a candidate, who is not only intrinsically bad for everyone except for his family, but also instrumentally bad in terms of longer-term effects? Not only will he cut many social benefits, intensify violence, and reduce opportunities, he threatens to destroy our democracy.

Specialists, no doubt, will each have a favourite a list of reasons to understand this phenomenon, but one stands out as becoming ever more powerful: the role of the big tech in influencing our electoral process.

Meta is for instance temporarily blocked videos and posts from the left wing candidates, and put up other barriers for their online presence. As is well-known the algorithms are biased: the left  wing gets less attention, reduced viewing, and their posts are more restricted in their circulation.

On the other side, not only is the social media system boosting Flavio Bolsonaro, as it did his father in previous elections, but Bolonaro has armies of robots or fake accounts systematically posting and reposting his material.

Lula’s supporters take to the streets, colourfully and noisily mobilising behind him. But these demonstrations of support barely penetrate social media, unlike coverage in favour of his opponent. The social media bias, of course, a huge impact in his campaign, which is deliberately hobbled by Bolsanoro’s supporters. Many young politicians are fighting back, trying to revitalise Lula’s chances for the second round, such as Janones and Ana Elisa for the Workes Party, but the fact that Lula’s starting point was so unequal raises serious and urgent questions about the emerging underlying structure for elections, not just in Brazil but around the world.

And if there are different rules for different parties, and no clarity or enforcement of the rules of what is allowed in this new space (robots; fake news), are our elections fair? Who, in the end, is  choosing our candidates? This is a crisis of democracy, and like any crisis it needs urgent action. But what can be done, and who has power to do it. If the President can’t make elections fair, who can?

The next round of the election is coming fast: 25th of October. Lula supporters must hope that, for the sake of Brazil, he has a chance to get his message across despite the obstacles deliberately put in his way. But whatever the outcome later this month we need to debate a set of serious structural questions about the terms of democratic engagement, which directly and indirectly have such a profound effect on the lives of us all.

General

 by 

Is resourcist housing policy enough?

Housing deprivation is a manifest indication of injustice in many cities. It occurs when individuals either cannot access housing or when they face a high risk of losing their homes, with the implication that people end up living in the streets or in precarious situations. According to United Nations Habitat, 1.8 billion people lack adequate housing. In Latin America, housing deprivation affects more than 28 million lower-income households. In Brazil, data from the 2022 Census shows that 281.472 people are homeless and from the Brazilian IBGE estimates that more than 5 million people are living in irregular houses. Questions that arise are: why this is an injustice, and how can we best address it?

 In recent years, these questions have gained increasing scholarly attention, in particular following the book on the subject written by Casey Dawkins (2021) and the work done by Katy Wells (2019; 2022). Both philosophers claim that housing deprivation is an injustice because it violates basic ideas of fundamental human needs – which have material and relational dimensions. However, they propose resourcist housing policies as a solution. In this post, although I agree with them that housing deprivation requires a multidimensional normative account, I argue that we should go beyond a resourcist policy.

(more…)

Gender / General / Governance

 by 

Towards a feminist city

Historically, men and women have experienced the city in a drastically different way. Cities were built not for women, but for and by men. This male dominance in urban planning brought about hetero-patriarchal norms, which are based either on women remaining quiet in the private spaces or – if they access urban spaces – relying on the urban structure created by men. The persistence of those urban spaces creates barriers for women accessing transport, land and constrains their social activity and agency needed to exercise their political voice. This is the characterisation of an oppressive and non-egalitarian city in terms of the division of power and resources.

(more…)

Gender / Governance / Rights

 by 

Combining public policies and transformative action in fighting against gender violence

In this contribution, Katarina Pitasse Fragoso and Nathália Sanglard reflect on gender violence and public policies. 

 Gender violence is a form of physical, verbal, psychological or symbolic damage, caused directly or indirectly to the person due to her gender identity. It is an injustice, because, according to Elizabeth Anderson, it has been generated by arbitrary systems, such as patriarchal ones, which use gender as a justification to harm others and prevent access to resources, rights, the job market and other services. In this article, we will explore how these types of violence disproportionately affect women and feminized subjects, and we will propose some ways to enhance mainstream public policies, through a combination of actions and participatory devices. (more…)

General / Work

 by 

Replying to the reverse discrimination objection: a context-depended argument rather than an abstract one

Last month, Magazine Luiza, a Brazilian department store that specialises in selling electronics and home items, published a trainee call intended only for young and black candidates. According to Luiza Trajano, president of the administration council, this initiative could prove a better anti-discriminatory policy than other programmes adopted by the company in the past (they currently have 53% of blacks in its staff. But only 16% of them hold leadership positions). Luiza Trajano’s company seeks to ensure more diversity in top positions whilst, at the same time taking action against structural racism in Brazil. The company’s new trainee programme, however, has been the subject of judicial action and criticism from a part of the general population, who claim that it embodies an unfair policy that discriminates against white candidates. (more…)