Read this while you can. No one knows, maybe I’ll be shut up by tomorrow morning. Just as one of the most important Brazilian newspapers was. Well, not really, but they tried. Let me explain myself. The Estado de S.Paulo newspaper was doing its job, publicizing news about a police investigation. As you may know, it’s the right of the people to know. But not too much, some people apparently think. Fernando Sarney, son of the president of the Senate, José Sarney, sued the newspaper and won, preventing articles on the subject. Why did he do that? Because he was being accused, by that police investigation, of money laundry, criminal misrepresentation, conspiracy, et cetera. How could Justice accept this censorship? Lawyers said the newspaper offended the honor of the Sarney Family, by publishing parts of phone conversations and other informations given by the investigation.

July 31, Fernando Sarney sued and won. So, as I write this text, we’re going through almost a hundred days of censorship. As you read this, it may be pretty more. Just put the newspaper’s name on Google. If you find, somewhere, a black stripe with a number and a phrase, you can be sure, they’re still counting the days. Occasional American reader, it’s just like someone decided to make an exception to the the First Amendment. Besides, the context in which it occurs makes the fact more noticeable. The cited José Sarney has been battling the public opinion. Ask any Brazilian if he wants him out of the Parliament and I’m afraid the answer will be "yes". The president hired relatives to work in the Senate (even his granddaugther’s boyfriend) and promulgated secret administrative acts. Despite the protests around the country, he’s still there, ruling, unharmed.

The people and the sued newspaper so fighted for almost the same cause, by two different ways. The latter has been obstinate, displaying the blotted out articles in its pages, thus reminding its readers of the censorship imposed on it and avoiding any obligation to pay Fernando (every article talking about the investigation would cost R$150,000 to the journal). The former went to the streets, shouted out loud, flooded Twitter with protest messages — and, then, apparently, forgot the whole thing. This is not one of the problems caused by a metaphorical political disease; it isn’t apathy caused by too many corruption cases and democracy failures. This is the very disease; it causes that corruption and those democracy mistakes. The apathy is at the beginning and at the end of the line.

I’m going to give you a handful of facts to proof that.

Let’s compare, again and more precisely, the two ways chosen to fight the problem. Since the Estado de S.Paulo newspaper is not allowed to write on the investigation, they keep on publishing articles and interviews about the prohibition itself. We can read at the website, one says: "This is unconstitucional. The Constitution is very clear, one can’t previously censor any kind of information". Also: "The information media’s liberty of speech is a right which can’t be denied by a judicial decision". And: "The decision damages Estado, the journalists and, above all, the citizen — he who has the right of being informed". These are the voices of president of lawyers or journalists associations and some politicians too. As you see, text by text, they are making a mark in history. The Sarney could shut they up in a limited way; but the words showing how they attacked freedom shall be remembered forever.

It’s true, it happens. In the times of the Brazilian militar dictatorship, this same Estado de S.Paulo was, as many others, censored. Every time an article was cutted out, they published a poem instead. The lines of the Portuguese poet Camões remained as an accusation, as a prove. Other newspaper, owned by the same publisher group, the Jornal da Tarde made its proving and denouncing too. They published, instead of bad news, cake recipes…

The story is going to last forever. Well, on the other hand, people created a social movement: the #forasarney, as it is known on the web. Literally: #outsarney. We had physical protests and public parades with no effect. My opinion is: people had impetus, but not conscience. They had the impulse of fighting corruption, but they didn’t really know what they were attacking or who were on the other side — their invisible enemies. As they furiously hitted the street, shouting and demanding, president Lula himself were protecting Sarney, because, as media says, Lula believes he will need Sarney's support next year for the upcoming elections. The president talked to congressmen and senators of his party, most of them, despite their own will, didn’t say a bad word about Sarney on the tribune. Understanding this, maybe the protests would be more effective. And they would be still more effective if people recognized there is not only one wrong politician — take him out, you get perfect democracy. We should be precise: we want him out, we want this one in. Otherwise, it’s all useless.

This fury without clear objectives, these unprecise protests, it explodes and then vanishes as fast as it came. It happened this way before. Some years ago, it was discovered there was a corruption net among many politicians — deputates and senators — who received certain amounts of money in order to support the projects of the govern. As far as I know, english media has called it the case of vote-buying or big monthly allowance. People got angry and then they complained and then they forgot. And again, when the testimonial of Francenildo Santos Costa was ignored, nobody did a thing. Don’t you know who he is? I guessed so. He is a nobody; a caretaker who said he saw the Finance Minister in the house he worked, part of meetings and parties in which it was said they made suspicious business. Antonio Palocci was the Finance Minister then, and he was trying to deny his participation in those parties when Francenildo made it too hard. So, late in the night, this caretaker had his bank secrecy violated and was accused of receiving money from the opposition parties.

Despite the truth of his accusations, Antonio Palocci was not really damaged by them. He lost the ministry, but he’s still a congressman. And Francenildo is a nobody once again. And the people, what about people? Well. They got angry and complained and forgot.

Apathy is at the beginning and at the end of the line. Our apathy, the fact they know we will probably have no reaction — and, if we have, it will be so weak they don’t need to care — well, this is the very circumstance which allows the corruption. Just as Radiohead sings: "you do it to yourself — and that’s what really hurts". So, come on, react. Read this while you can. And spread the word.

To add your comments about this article "Click Here"