[...]
Her own faults, which even her defenders concede are substantial, contributed to her downfall. But what is clear is that it is not only her career that has crashed, but the Brazilian democratic system as a whole. Dysfunctional to the point where corruption is virtually unavoidable and good governance constantly impeded, it worked, just about, in the skilled hands of Lula during a period of lively economic growth. Lula could finesse its inadequacies and manage the complex coalitions to which it gave rise. However, he resorted to corruption to do so.
Dilma inherited this unhappy legacy and began to lose control during a period of economic decline, as corruption, thanks to independent police and prosecutors, was becoming a scandal of increasing proportions. Male prejudice against a female leader, and the grudges of a political right never wholly reconciled to the rise of Lula’s and Dilma’s Workers’ party (PT) certainly played their part. The final toxic element in the crisis was the realisation by many politicians that prosecutors could soon catch more and more of them in its net, and that a way to avoid or minimise this possibility would be to distract attention and take control of the political process by pursuing the impeachment of the head of state.
The rights and wrongs of the case against the president will be debated in the senate, acting as a court. It involves, at this stage, no charges of corruption, while a considerable number of those who voted for impeachment have either been charged or are facing investigation for that offence. The irony is plain to see, when so many of the accusers are themselves accused, and of worse sins. For example, Eduardo Cunha, the speaker of the lower house, who orchestrated the campaign to impeach the president, was earlier this month ordered to step down because he faces a corruption trial.
[...]