Public Trust and Brasil's Free Fare Movement

On the first day of the Carnegie Council's Global Ethics Dialogues in Rio de Janeiro, the city, along with many of Brazil's major metropolitan areas, was the site of a massive "social manifestation" aimed at expressing widespread public discontent. More than 100,000 protesters turned out in both Rio and Sao Paolo, and estimates of 10,000-40,000 are also being reported in Belem and Salvador as well. The demonstrations are being characterized as a reaction to a proposed bus fare hike, but are also focused on a range of related issues about public transportation, infrastructure, and social services. 

The protests underscore the relevance of the Dialogues' dual focus on corruption and sustainability. One media account quotes a participant as saying, "It's about much more than [a hike in bus fare]. It's about a society that is sick of corrupt politicians not making good on their promises to make improvements." Many protesters carried Brazilian flags, the motto of which had been abbreviated from "Order and Progress" to "in Progress." The benefits of progress, the symbol indicates, are not being fully shared by all Brazilians.

The people I have spoken with point to any number of public works programs intended to develop the nation's infrastructure and wonder aloud about the transparency of the financing and question the benefit to the working class. This is especially striking in Rio, where numerous construction projects related to the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics are currently underway. The popular sentiment here seems to be the concern that Brazil's rapid growth over the past decade has not been effectively directed at the public benefit.

Transportation, health, and education are areas where substantive, transparent investments would bring more tangible benefits. Instead, the protesters assert, government funds are squandered and mismanaged. Access to a robust, low-cost public transportation network is an important social good for Brazil's students and working classes, but there remains a sizable gap between their vision of a sustainable and egalitarian urban society and actions of the current government. 

[PHOTO CREDIT: Izaias Buson (CC).]

Views: 169

Tags: #changebrazil, Brazil, Corruption, Dialogues, Ethics, Global, Sustainability

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

The Ethics of Trade with China and Authoritarian Upgrading

Increased foreign investment and engagement is producing, not democratization, but "authoritarian upgrading," where selected reforms are designed to legitimize a softer authoritarianism. This presents an ethical dilemma for international trade. What direction will China, Uzbekistan, Russia, and other "upgraded authoritarian" states evolve towards in the coming decade?

The 2020 Election & the View from Overseas, with Nikolas Gvosdev

As the 2020 election begins to come into focus, Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev details the foreign policy cleavages in the Democratic Party. Plus, referencing Nahal Toosi's recent article in "Politico," he discusses the worries that many in Europe have about a Trump reelection or a progressive candidate who also questions the status quo. What's the view from abroad on this turbulent time in American politics?

Ethics & the U.S.-China Trade War, with Nikolas Gvosdev

What role should ethics play in the U.S.-China trade war? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev looks at these economic tensions in the context of the Uyghur detention and the Hong Kong protests, different theories on integrating China into the world economy, and what it could mean to "lose" in this conflict. Is there a breaking point in terms of China's human rights policies? What's the view in Africa and Europe?

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.