Governing COVID in Brazil: Dissecting the Ableist and Reluctant Authoritarian
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
http://somatosphere.net/2020/governing-covid-in-brazil-dissecting-the-able
ist-and-reluctant-authoritarian.html/
Governing COVID in Brazil: Dissecting the Ableist
and Reluctant Authoritarian
2020-04-17 07:17:47
By Francisco Ortega and Michael Orsini
Brazilians, says President Jair Bolsonaro, are so tough they can fend off
this pesky COVID-19 virus, the same virus that has killed more than
147,000+ people worldwide and counting.
Likening COVID-19 to a “little flu”, the Brazilian leader has exposed, once
again, how he governs this South American country with a toxic mix of
populist mistrust of science, ableism, and a dose of toxic masculinity, all of
which he whips into a nationalist fervor.
First, Bolsonaro has been reluctant to use the iron fist of the state to
enforce lockdowns to stem the spread of COVID-19, as leaders in many
countries, far less authoritarian, have done. Lest he be mistaken for a
leader concerned about the threat to civil liberties occasioned by the
imposition of social distancing measures, Bolsonaro has laughed off the
need for extreme measures, arguing that “vertical isolation” of seniors or
other vulnerable people is sufficient.
Some commentators fear that authoritarian leaders are using the
COVID-19 crisis to enforce draconian measures, silence critics and secure
their power base. They warn that once this public health crisis has
subsided, the consolidation of power will be the pandemic’s main lasting
legacy. Notorious examples include Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, who
declared a state of emergency that has enabled him to seize power and
rule by decree, and the Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte, who
bestowed upon himself emergency powers to silence purveyors of “fake”
news. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited the
coronavirus to suspend the courts, effectively delaying his own trial on
corruption charges, other governments, such as those of Algeria and
India, are relying on the pandemic threat to clamp down on political
demonstrations. And others like China, South Korea and Russia have
used the COVID-19 pandemic to strengthen digital surveillance (Roth,
2020). Their style of pandemic politicization does not deny science;
instead, it mobilizes scientific evidence to justify and enforce punitive
approaches to policing the pandemic.
page 1 / 7Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
Bolsonaro’s politicization of the pandemic, by contrast, is curiously
different. He is, then, a reluctant authoritarian of sorts. While he would like
to be a dictator, he cannot use pandemic fear as his authoritarian
‘friends’ have in other countries because he fears the political
consequences of the economic crisis. He has not used the coronavirus to
seize power and clamp down on society and his critics. To be clear,
Bolsonaro has no appreciation for democracy, nor for checks and
balances on his power. He firmly believes a military coup would solve the
country’s problems, but is also aware that he lacks the military’s support
to transform Brazil into a dictatorship in the image of Hungary’s Orbán.
Consumed with his own political survival, Bolsonaro has forged a false
dichotomy between quarantine and the economy. The rationale for this is
clear: a collapse of the economy following social distancing would hamper
his political future. His attempts to concentrate power in the federal
government and use it to fight social distancing and other policies to
control the spread of COVID-19 have so far been unsuccessful. Policies to
limit the circulation of people have been enacted by state and municipal
authorities and have been endorsed by the House of Representatives and
the Senate. Even some members of Bolsonaro’s own cabinet have
expressed concern about his opposition to lockdown policies, including his
Health minister, who was abruptly fired on April 16 by the President.
The global spread of COVID-19 has introduced an important shift in the
position of the legislative branch regarding Bolsonaro’s authoritarian
discourse, which had been tolerated so long as neoliberal economic
policies remained in place. Now Bolsonaro is isolated in his defense of
vertical quarantine and his dissemination of lies about the pandemic. The
current chaotic scenario is intentional for somebody who relies on ‘chaos
as method’ to maintain his followers’ loyalty and spread disinformation
(Meyer and Bustamante, 2020). It is difficult to ignore the necropolitical
features of this grotesque exercise of power. As philosopher Achille
Mbembe explains (2003, 40) in his critique of the notion of biopower and
elaboration of the notion of necropolitics and necropower, “in our
contemporary world, weapons are deployed in the interest of maximum
destruction of persons and the creation of death-worlds, new and unique
forms of social existence in which vast populations are subjected to
conditions of life conferring upon them the status of living dead.” The
countries that ignored or delayed calls for social isolation must now
contend with mounting deaths. As one Brazilian journalist writes, “this is
how adherents of necropolitics act: negotiating over the number of corpses
to sustain a political narrative made against science” (Filho, 2020).
To avoid the chaotic spread of the virus and a mounting death toll across
the densely populated country, Bolsonaro’s own Army reportedly decided
to circumvent him in all important decisions, turning the president into a
page 2 / 7Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
‘monarch without effective power’ and General Braga Netto into the
‘operational president’ (Rocha, 2020).
More a messianic leader with a penchant for explosive pronouncements
that generate media shock and awe, Bolsonaro has tapped into a
nationalist, populist desire to position him and his countrymen (misogynists
are not interested in women as political subjects) as rugged, self-made
individualists. Brazil has even witnessed a spate of “pro pandemic”
demonstrations from his supporters proclaiming a new version of “red
scare”, with claims that the virus is part of an evil Communist plot to
destabilize the world, and spur political regime change.
Second, Bolsonaro has taken a step beyond the exploitation of a deep
mistrust/distrust of science that has been the stock and trade of leaders
such as U.S. President Donald Trump. While it is not surprising that
Bolsonaro would question the legitimacy of expert advice to maintain a
lockdown and social distancing, he has surrounded himself with a range of
characters whose own views are extreme–the equivalent of creationists
and flat-earth proponents. His own political calculus might be cunningly
rational: being focused squarely on his own political survival, Bolsonaro
may be appropriately concerned with how a lockdown might hasten an
economic collapse of the country, something from which he might struggle
to (politically and socially) ‘distance’ himself. Maintaining a form of
“strategic ignorance” (see McGoey 2012) about the public health disaster
unfolding in his country can be politically expedient, albeit morally
reprehensible. This includes Bolsonaro’s puzzling declaration that the end
of the pandemic was on the horizon, when the consensus among public
health experts is that Brazil has yet to experience the worst that this
pandemic has in store. As McGoey rightly remarks (2012, 3), “the denial
of unsettling facts, the realization that knowing the least amount possible
is often the most indispensable tool for managing risks and exonerating
oneself from blame in the aftermath of catastrophic events.”
Bolsonaro’s political discourse has been described as an all-out ‘war on
truth’ by Oscar-nominated Brazilian filmmaker Petra Costa, who has been
called a “scumbag” by one of Bolsonaro’s sons. The denial of climate
change underlying his environmental policy, his revisionist view of history,
a cultural politics based on conservative, religious and family values and
opposition to gender equality are some of the elements of this post-truth
view. He has also worked tirelessly, and somewhat paradoxically given his
position, to undermine public institutions. For instance, he appointed a
creationist to head Brazil’s largest research funding agency, named
someone who denies the existence of racism to take charge of defending
Black Rights in Brazil, and appointed a representative of agrobusiness
who is hostile to Indigenous rights to head the National Foundation for
Indigenous Peoples (Bustamante and Meyer, 2020).
page 3 / 7Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
If that were not enough, key members of his inner circle identify with the
flat earth movement, which renounces much of the scientific consensus on
which our world is based. Flat earthers are bolstered in their beliefs by
evangelical Christians. This ideological tent accommodates a veritable
grab bag that includes communist conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination
proponents, opponents of freedom of gender expression, to name a few.
Bolsonaro’s anti-science stance should not be confused with a critical
posture toward science, which is a necessary feature of democratic
governance. He and members of his government have deliberately
disseminated fake news about COVID-19 such as the promotion of
hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment or the idea of vertical isolation
to promote herd immunity as opposed to social distancing. Bolsonaro even
distorted a statement by WHO director to defend the idea that workers can
return to normality.
Part of the challenge with interpreting Bolsonaro’s handling of COVID-19
is that while his opposition to social distancing is fueled by a rejection of
science and expertise, countries such as Sweden have also been
reluctant to impose a lockdown. How then should we characterize
Bolsonaro’s governance style, and what does this mean for Brazil’s
response to this overwhelming public health crisis, which many observers
agree is most likely more significant than the official data are
communicating?
Finally, we assert that Bolsonaro’s governance style rests on a blend of
ableism and toxic masculinity. Ableism refers to a “network of beliefs,
processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body
(the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical
and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then is cast as a
diminished state of being human” (Campbell, 2001, 44 quoted in
Campbell 2009, 5).
Bolsonaro’s rhetoric is heavily invested in his moral and physical fitness,
which can purportedly build a wall against this “little flu’. Ableism, of
course, is not expressed simply at the level of the individual. It radiates
beyond, and in this case, carries with it symbolic force as a proxy for the
health and vitality of Brazilian people. After all, as Bolsonaro proclaimed,
Brazilians are the personification of pandemic preparedness: “They never
catch anything. You see some bloke jumping into the sewage, he gets out,
has a dive, right? And nothing happens to him.”
Ableism has been a prominent reality of this pandemic in many countries.
The initial suggestions that the pandemic would “only” affect the elderly or
people with underlying conditions sends a painful message that some lives
matter more than those of others. As disability activists were at pains to
page 4 / 7Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
explain, hearing that their lives are disposable or expendable, or might not
fare well in the triage lottery, provided further evidence of the value
attached to lives of individuals deemed lesser than. As philosopher
Shelley Tremain explains (2020), while it is common to mobilize the
language of vulnerability vis-à-vis disability, in our compassion for
“vulnerable” others, we should avoid naturalizing the term “vulnerability”.
Individuals, she explains, are “rendered vulnerable” by systems and
institutions: “Vulnerability isn’t a characteristic that certain individuals
possess or embody. Like disability, vulnerability is a naturalized apparatus
of power that differentially produces subjects, materially, socially,
politically, and relationally.”
Bolsonaro has a shameful history with regard to disability rights. During his
election campaign, he classified policies created specifically for vulnerable
groups as ‘coitadismo’ (or self-pity). His pronouncements are translated
into sign language, but he scrapped the Secretariat in charge of Deaf
education. His government presented a bill that no longer requires that
companies fulfill their obligation to hire employees with disabilities. In
addition, he vetoed the expansion of a program that would have provided
emergency income to the elderly and low-income, disabled people during
the period of quarantine. The program was originally designed to
support informal and self-employed workers during the pandemic.
Bolsonaro’s brand of toxic masculinity is intense, even rivalling that of his
blood brother, Donald Trump. “Face the virus like a man, dammit, not a
boy,” he said recently. Real men can withstand a lot, apparently, and
would not let a mere virus interfere with their important lives. Bolsonaro,
who says the virus is no match for his virulent self, has been tested twice
for COVID-19. He has, however, declined to reveal the test results.
Because real men have privacy rights!
Ultimately, it appears that the toxic male traits of leaders such as
Bolsonaro and Trump are the last thing we need in managing a pandemic
as complex and multi-faceted as COVID-19. As has been pointed out,
countries led by women, including New Zealand’s Jacinta Ardern and
Germany’s Angela Merkel are leading the way in coordinated responses
that are not only evidence-based but also grounded in empathy and a
collective ethic of care.
References
Bustamante, Thomas da Rosa & Meyer, Emilio Peluso Neder (2020),
“Bolsonarism & Covid-19: Truth Strikes Back”, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Mar.
24.
http://www.iconnectblog.com/2020/03/bolsonarism-and-covid-19-truth-strik
es-back/
page 5 / 7Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
Campbell, Fiona Kumari (2009), Contours of Ableism: The Production of
Disability and Ableness. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Filho, Joao (2020), “Coronavírus: mentiras fabricadas pelo ‘gabinete do
ódio’ ditam ações do presidente no combate à pandemia”, The Intercept
Brasil. April
12.
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/12/gabinete-odio-coronavirus-bolsonaro/
Mbembe, Achille (2003), (translated by Libby Meintjes)
“Necropolitics”, Public Culture, (15) 1: 11-40.
McGoey, Linsey (2012), “Strategic unknowns: towards a sociology of
ignorance”, Economy and Society, 41:1, 1-16.
Meyer, Emilio Peluso Neder and Bustamante, Thomas (2020),
“Authoritarianism Without Emergency Powers: Brazil Under COVID-19”,
VerfBlog, April 8,
https://verfassungsblog.de/authoritarianism-without-emergency-powers-br
azil-under-covid-19/.
Rocha, Lucas (2020), “Does Brazil already have a new “acting
President”?” Brasil Wire. April
4.
https://www.brasilwire.com/does-brazil-already-have-a-new-acting-preside
nt/
Tremain, Shelley (2020), “COVID-19 and the Naturalization of
Vulnerability”, April 1.
https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2020/04/01/covid-19-and-the-naturalizati
on-of-vulnerability/?fbclid=IwAR0KdKRjoeCkO_jMPlAokKTdvxrA1YFmc6D
1KVZOVJYJa7BJFmk_dkXugSA
Francisco Ortega is Full Professor in the Institute for Social Medicine of
the State University of Rio de Janeiro and Director of the Brazil Center for
Global Health. He is also Visiting Professor at the Department of Global
Health and Social Medicine of King’s College, London. His
books include Corporeality, Medical Technologies and Contemporary
Culture (Routledge, 2014), and with Fernando Vidal, Being Brains: Making
the Cerebral Subject (Fordham University Press, 2017) and Neurocultures:
Glimpses Into an Expanding Universe (Peter Lang, 2011).
Michael Orsini is Professor in the Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies
and the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa (Canada).
Some of his recent publications include Mobilizing Metaphor: Art, Culture
and Disability Activism in Canada (co-edited with Christine Kelly),
page 6 / 7Science, Medicine, and Anthropology
http://somatosphere.net
University of British Columbia Press, 2016), Seeing Red: HIV/AIDS and
Public Policy in Canada (co-edited with Suzanne Hindmarch and Marilou
Gagnon), University of Toronto Press, 2018, and Worlds of Autism: Across
the Spectrum of Neurological Difference (co-edited with Joyce Davidson),
University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
This piece has also been published in Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish.
AMA citation
Ortega F, Orsini M. Governing COVID in Brazil: Dissecting the Ableist and
Reluctant Authoritarian. Somatosphere. 2020. Available at: http://somatos
phere.net/2020/governing-covid-in-brazil-dissecting-the-ableist-and-relucta
nt-authoritarian.html/. Accessed April 29, 2020.
APA citation
Ortega, Francisco & Orsini, Michael. (2020). Governing COVID in Brazil:
Dissecting the Ableist and Reluctant Authoritarian. Retrieved April 29,
2020, from Somatosphere Web site: http://somatosphere.net/2020/governi
ng-covid-in-brazil-dissecting-the-ableist-and-reluctant-authoritarian.html/
Chicago citation
Ortega, Francisco and Michael Orsini. 2020. Governing COVID in Brazil:
Dissecting the Ableist and Reluctant Authoritarian. Somatosphere. http://s
omatosphere.net/2020/governing-covid-in-brazil-dissecting-the-ableist-and
-reluctant-authoritarian.html/ (accessed April 29, 2020).
Harvard citation
Ortega, F & Orsini, M 2020, Governing COVID in Brazil: Dissecting the
Ableist and Reluctant Authoritarian, Somatosphere. Retrieved April 29,
2020, from
MLA citation
Ortega, Francisco and Michael Orsini. "Governing COVID in Brazil:
Dissecting the Ableist and Reluctant Authoritarian." 17 Apr. 2020.
Somatosphere. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.
page 7 / 7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)You can also read
