Brazil: Football, Fighting, and the Future

This week sees the climax of the Confederations Cup, a football tournament between the winners of each continent's most recent international championship, which is also seen as a test event for the following year's World Cup.

Brazil are the favourites to lift the trophy on Sunday, and while the action on the pitch has been marked by the arrival on the world stage of the hosts' latest superstar, Neymar, it is the events on the streets for which the past few weeks will be remembered as a watershed moment in the country's history.

Not so long ago, Brazil's was a relatively small economy, growing fast; now, this rapid economic emergence has translated into social development, too – people's horizons have broadened, their expectations have been raised – and their voices have got louder.

Many Brazilians now feel entitled to the riches that they have enjoyed as a result, and they expect their leaders to continue to deliver them.

But that hasn't happened – Brazil's growth rate has plummeted; the cost of living has spiked and public services have failed to keep up – largely due, say the protestors, to the billions being spent on stadia for both next year's festival of football and the Olympics in Rio in 2016.

The protests may have begun in response to a rise in bus fares in Sao Paulo, but that was never really the issue. Rather, for the thousands who took to the streets, it was a gesture that typified the authorities’ attitudes to ordinary people, and which provided an excuse for the people to strike back.

A single-issue dispute quickly became a nationwide demonstration of anger and frustration at politicians' apparently misplaced priorities, and as more and more people joined in and the unity of purpose was diluted, things inevitably got nasty – especially when police viciously tried to clamp down on the unrest.

On the whole, though, the behaviour of the Brazilian people, and especially the reaction of the country's leaders, offer a stark contrast to the scenes witnessed, almost simultaneously, on Europe's periphery.

Just like their South American counterparts, the protestors who took to the streets of Istanbul did so in opposition to a single, controversial decision – to redevelop a popular city-centre park; similarly, the sense of liberation sank deeper and spread wider, leading to nationwide demonstrations against a political leadership that seemed to have lost its way.

But there the similarities end, because whereas Brazil’s first-term President, Dilma Rousseff, has struck a moderate tone in defending people’s right to speak out, Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – winner of three elections and seeking the Presidency next year – has responded with an iron fist, confronting the protestors verbally and ordering the police to do so with systematic violence intended to quell the unrest.

The contrast boils down to different understandings of – and attitudes to – democracy. Mr Erdogan is apparently unable to understand why his triple electoral mandate has not delivered to him the harmony and stability he craves as the basis for his bid for the top job.

Ms Rousseff, on the other hand, may not have the political leadership qualities of her revered predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, but she does at least appear to understand the limits of her power. 

Yesterday, she offered an olive branch to her opponents, pledging to focus on improving public services and tackling corruption, because she realises the importance - to herself as well as the country - of being seen to be on the people's side.

Her task is to harness her political support, the strength of Brazil’s civil society and the opportunities that Brazil’s time in the spotlight offers, so that at the end of it all, Brazil can emerge looking like a country that, for all its faults, is moving forward economically and socially.

Turkey, on the other hand, looks like a nation at war with itself, with religious divisions and over-zealous leadership threatening the country’s future. People used to talk about future EU membership – now it seems that even by that club’s standards, such a move would be quite an own goal.

Tackling Terror On The Streets

It was a brutal act of murder that brought a whole nation together in shock and disgust. Committed in broad daylight and surrounded by onlookers, the crime brought the unsettling realisation that the country had not, after all, rid itself of home-grown, homeland terrorism.

Almost immediately, questions were being asked about why it happened, how it could have been allowed to happen, and whether it might happen again. For the politicians, already fighting battles on several other fronts, it was an unwelcome distraction.

Whether it’s the Boston marathon bombing or the Woolwich street attack that the Sage is alluding to, however, what is striking about the recent events is the way that they seem to signal a new kind of terrorism – one that is much more difficult to explain, understand and (especially) prevent.

In both cases, the two men responsible studied in the country of their attack before converting to radical Islam; in both cases, they were known to the police or security services, but on minor or unrelated grounds, arousing suspicions only possible with the benefit of hindsight; in both cases the offences have been investigated as a criminal act as much as in terms of terrorism.

In both cases, they did little to ‘disappear’ after the attack, instead gifting the authorities every chance to apprehend them and thus afford them the opportunity to publicise their message; in both cases, that message was that the attack was revenge for the killing of Muslims by Western soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the long-term response of the two countries has differed markedly.

In America, there seems to be no prospect of further legislation, or of any action that might further alienate potential domestic enemies; if anything the attack has strengthened President Obama’s determination to reduce his nation’s antagonistic ways – by deploying unmanned drones more sparingly, for example.

He might even fulfil his 2008 election pledge to close Guantanamo… or perhaps not.

In Britain, on the other hand, the government (spurred on, as usual, by much of the media) has leapt into reactionary mode, with the Home Secretary, in particular, desperate to be seen to be doing something – whether or not that ‘something’ is necessary or even helpful.

The Data Communications Bill, effectively abandoned earlier this year due to disagreements within the coalition, appears to be back on the table.

In updating existing surveillance legislation to capture 21st-century forms of communication, the content of the Bill is eminently sensible, but its introduction would look like a knee-jerk reaction that might do more harm than good – to the government’s credibility and the nation’s security.

Yesterday, meanwhile, saw the formation of a new anti-terrorism ‘task force’, intended to find practical ways to reduce the risk of disillusioned young Muslims drifting into extremism (but forgive your correspondent for not holding his breath).

What that is likely to mean is the state finding more ways to shake its fist in an attempt to impose peace on those already set on war. Instead, the authorities should go about tackling renegade mosques the way they deal with ordinary criminal gangs – which first means understanding why they exist and why their members are so drawn to them.

Otherwise, just as the foreign policy of previous governments did for today’s brand of terrorist, those in power will merely be giving the next generation an excuse for the inexcusable.