A man pushes a cart in front of a mural depicting Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and Vice President Michel Temer, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 19. Mr. Temer, who may become Brazil’s next president if impeachment proceedings oust Ms. Rousseff, is almost as unpopular as she, and stained by scandals of his own.

What lies behind turmoil in Brazil, Ukraine

A president faces impeachment, a prime minister resigns – these are signs of voters fed up with corruption and looking for blame. The ultimate answer, however, lies in choosing and voting for moral candidates.

The late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote that leaders elected in an open democracy are “constituted” to respond to the moral values of the people. That truism is now under test in two troubled democracies, Brazil and Ukraine. Voters there, having fairly elected their representatives, are now decrying a level of official corruption that has led to political turmoil at the very top.

In Brazil, bold prosecutors have opened corruption probes against many top legislators, who have responded by trying to deflect attention with an impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff. Congress may be right in its charges against her – that she secretly shifted money from public banks to cover a fiscal deficit. But few Brazilians accept that as the real issue. Ms. Rousseff has not been pinned with personal corruption. Yet she is also seen by many as head of a corrupt system, one that is a drag on the economy. If she is ousted in a Senate vote, that will hardly quell voter anger. The vice president who would replace her is himself entangled in the corruption probe.

While Brazil’s prosecutors are being hailed as heroes, they warn that the burden of cleaning up a democracy should not rest solely on the court system or bureaucratic reforms. Breaking a culture of impunity starts with voters.

“We know a lot of people put their hopes in us,” stated Deltan Dallagnol, lead prosecutor in the case involving kickbacks from the state oil company, Petrobras, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper. “This case won’t change Brazil, but it can be a lever for society. Society is the main actor, not us.”

In Ukraine, where a corrupt president was forced to resign in 2014 by protesters, a newly elected regime has started some reforms but has also been tarred with claims of corruption. It did not help when the leaked Panama Papers revealed President Petro Poroshenko had hid his wealth in an offshore company. As reforms have stalled, and blame for that attributed to powerful oligarchs, the prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was forced to resign last week. He was replaced by a close aide to the president, dampening hopes of further tackling corruption.

Oddly, having elected Ukraine’s parliament, a large majority of voters in a recent survey described it as the most corrupt political institution in the country. How to explain this or, better yet, change it?

“The public’s perceptions and behavior will change slowly,” writes Thomas de Waal, a European expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “A shift in attitudes will happen faster if assisted by educational initiatives and more media discussion of everyday corruption, especially in Ukraine’s regions.”

What is easily forgotten as these political dramas play out in Brazil and Ukraine is a need for self-reflection by the very citizenry that casts the ballots – and thus must also cast the mold for honest governance. The “system” is shaped by voters and thereafter shapes them. They must promote candidates, elect them, and forever track their work with the assistance of prosecutors, whistle-blowers, auditors, and the media. Democracy is merely a mirror of a country’s moral climate.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What lies behind turmoil in Brazil, Ukraine
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today