RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – (Opinion) Created in April by Brazil’s Senate, the parliamentary investigative committee known as the Covid CPI is scheduled to end on August 7; however, that period can be extended for 90 days.
The CPI has drafted a petition requesting the extension, which needs signature by 27 senators for approval; the CPI says it already has 34. The petition justifies the time extension by setting out a summary listing of what it uncovered in its first 60 days of activities.
There are “deliberate omissions and actions” by the administration:
- “[seeking] a false herd immunity”
- “the promotion of inefficacious treatments” and
- “boycotts of non-pharmacological measures such as masks, social distancing, and alcohol gel”
There are the administration’s “failures”:
- “communication”
- “monitoring and mapping the pandemic”
- “managing needed ICU beds in the country” and
- “planning for supply of basic input components – oxygen, medicine, protective gear, tests, and respirators”
The government’s “boycott of vaccines” merits a separate chapter:
- “dozens of emails from Pfizer unanswered”
- “countless insults to countries and research institutions that supply vaccines to Brazil”
- “delays of vaccines and their components”
- “interruptions in the vaccination campaign”
In a prior column, we pointed out that congressional CPIs in Brazil have a long history of resulting in absolutely nothing of consequence, and we blithely predicted the same fate for the Covid CPI.
We may have been too hasty.
We based our forecast upon an incorrect supposition: namely, that the pro-government parties – a majority in Congress – would arrange to appoint a majority of the 11-member committee. They were unable to do so, and 7 committee members are from opposition or independent parties.
The CPI chair, the deputy chair, and the rapporteur have all become increasingly vociferous in their criticisms of the government, so there are, as we predicted, countless inflammatory speeches designed to increase the orator’s media exposure.
On the other hand, there have also been numerous witnesses: current or former government officials; public health experts; pharmaceutical executives. The testimony of these witnesses has been incredibly damaging to the administration.
So, where does the CPI go from here? There are two official purposes of any congressional investigative committee: one legislative, one judicial. Discovery of irregularities should lead to (1) proposals for corrective legislation, and (2) petitions to the Federal Prosecutor General (PGR) to bring criminal charges against those committing illegalities.
Most of the CPI’s list of the administration’s deficiencies, although serious, arguably do not amount to conduct specifically defined as crimes in the Penal Code; moreover, PGR Aras, appointed by Bolsonaro, is notoriously pro-administration. Do not expect show trials.
Returning to CPI history, only two have produced tangible results, both of which have damaged sitting Brazilian presidents: (1) that in 1992 resulted in then-President Collor’s pre-impeachment resignation; (2) that in 2005 uncovered the “Mensalão” scandal, which badly tarnished then-President Lula’s image.
The impeachment of President Bolsonaro is not among the Covid CPI’s stated objectives, but its findings have supplied ammunition to those who are calling for Congress to begin proceedings to oust him.
Impeachment is political, not penal. Brazil’s constitution defines an impeachable offense as a “crime de responsabilidade” best rendered in English as a “crime of accountability”.
President Bolsonaro is, in the end, accountable politically for his administration’s actions, omissions, derelictions of duty, and malfeasance.
Brazilian writer Vanessa Barbara described the situation well in an op-ed NYTimes column May 21: “The [CPI] inquiry, slowly and steadily, is unveiling a classic supervillain plot, at once nefarious and absurd, deadly and appalling. Whether the villain meets his comeuppance is another story.”
The comeuppance could be Bolsonaro’s impeachment, or it could be his defeat at the polls in 2022, which was, as we pointed out back in April, the tacit objective of the opposition senators who instigated the CPI.
Once burned, twice shy: we make no hasty prediction on either outcome.