Another Lula da Silva Presidency Would Be a Disaster for Brazilian Democracy and the Press

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva wears a face mask during a press conference in Brasilia, Brazil, on Oct. 8, 2021. (Evaristo Sa/AFP via Getty Images)

Commentary

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the far-left candidate in Brazil’s presidential elections this year, has resumed his attack on freedom of expression by demanding the “social control of the media.”

“Social control of the media” can be defined as a “euphemism to subordinate the free flow of information to the undercover interference from government.”

Commonly known as Lula, the former president vowed that if elected in the next presidential elections, his government would definitely implement this state-sponsored censorship of social media.

“We will have to regulate social networks, regulate the internet, set a parameter,” said Lula in a Nov. 19, 2021, interview in Brussels, Belgium.

In this interview, Lula falsely accused the current incumbent of being “a president who tells lies a day through social networks.”

According to him, the proliferation of alleged “fake news” is motivated by the rise and election of “far-right” politicians like President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and former U.S. president Donald Trump.

However, this statement reveals more about Lula himself than his political adversaries. He is a former union leader who served as the 35th president of Brazil from 2003 to 2010. Over that period, he attempted to consolidate dictatorial powers by means of a number of external bodies of “social control” over the press, television and movies.

Fortunately, however, the constant scandals that shook his notoriously corrupt administration had at least the beneficial effect of demoralising a government bent on establishing a long-lasting dictatorial regime.

Lula and the Press

On July 23, 2003, during the Lula administration, Brazil supported the request from Fidel Castro’s Cuba to suspend the consultative status of the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) within the U.N. Human Rights Commissions.

Lula supported the suspension of RWB because this organisation dared to criticise the election of Muhammar Gaddafi’s Libya as the chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission (pdf). In joining with Libya and other countries with an appalling human-rights record (China, Cuba, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia), Lula’s Brazil voted for the suspension of one of the few NGOs representing freedom of the press to have consultative status within this branch of the U.N. Economic and Social Council.

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva arrives at Federal Justice for a testimony in Curitiba, Brazil, on May 10, 2017. (Nacho Doce/Reuters)

On May 11, 2004, the Lula administration arbitrarily revoked the visa of New York Times correspondent Larry Rohter, who was outside Brazil at the time, after he wrote an article about Lula’s notorious drinking habits.

The action was entirely illegal because the law in Brazil explicitly prohibits the expulsion of foreigners married to a Brazilian or having a Brazilian child. Rohter not only lived in Brazil, but he was married to a Brazilian woman and had two Brazilian children.

“The incident caused an uproar, and even journalists who questioned Rohter’s article criticized the government for its intolerance,” said a report of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

And yet, only a few days after the illegal decision to expel that journalist, Lula said: “It’s not for a president to reply to an idiocy such as this. It doesn’t deserve any reply. It deserves action. I think he should be much more worried than I am.”

He further stated: “This journalist will no longer stay in this country. This will serve as an example to others. If I didn’t take this measure, any other journalist from any other country could do the same without any fear of punishment.”

Bill a Threat to Freedom of Expression

In August 2004, the Lula administration introduced a bill that aimed to abolish freedom of the press via the creation of the Federal Council of Journalism (CFJ). This agency would have acquired extraordinary powers to “guide, discipline, and monitor” all journalists working in Brazil. They would have to register with that entity to have the right to work as a journalist. The then president would have the power to freely nominate the board members of this federal regulatory agency to a four-year term.

On that occasion, Alberto Dines, professor of journalism at the University of Campinas, explained that the CFJ bill would undermine “the indispensable separation between government and press.”

A supporter holds the Brazilian flag prior to the expected arrival of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro in Anguillara Veneta, Italy, on Nov. 1, 2021. (Piero Cruciatti/AFP via Getty Images)

According to the Brazilian Press Association, that bill was “a threat to the constitutionally established principle of freedom of expression.”

Fortunately, the Câmara dos Deputados (House of Representatives) decided to vote down that proposal in 2005.

However, in 2009, there was a second attempt by the Lula administration to establish government control over the media through a “National Conference on Communications” charged with drafting a regulatory framework that would impose “social control” of the press and its content.

Social Control or Free Press

Many media organisations refused to participate and several of the country’s leading newspapers heavily criticised the initiative.

According to the then president of the National Magazine Editors, Roberto Muylaert, his organisation would not participate in this process because the idea of “social control” of the media “is incompatible with freedom of expression and a free press.”

“The proposal to create a ‘social council’ to audit press content implies modifications to the Constitution which guarantees free initiative and freedom of expression,” he said.

Indeed, the Brazilian Constitution is patently clear in Article 5 that all forms of censorship or hindrance being placed on the freedom of the press are prohibited.

The Brazilian Constitution goes even further and provides in Article 220 a formal protection for freedom of expression for intellectual, artistic, scientific, and media activities. The provision states that every manifestation of thought, expression, and information shall never be subjected to any form of governmental restriction for political, ideological, or artistic reasons.

I hope that the winner of the next presidential elections in Brazil will be respectful of basic human rights and the Brazilian Constitution. Accordingly, the candidature of Lula da Silva represents a serious threat to the future of democracy and the rule of law in Brazil. In fact, if Lula were elected for another presidential term, it could spell absolute disaster for the Brazilian democracy.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.