Corruption as a moral alibi

Some time ago, scandals involving Workers' Party politicians helped make corruption almost synonymous with the left. There were not just some politicians accused or convicted of corruption, but “the corrupt PT”, “the corrupt left”, “the corrupt communist”. When scandals reach the other side, however, this generalization disappears.

Recently, the country saw the secret budget move tens of billions of reais during a right-wing government, mainly benefiting its support base in Congress; saw “rachadinhas” schemes involving offices of politicians identified with the right; and has followed billion-dollar scandals, such as INSS fraud and the Banco Master case, which reveal relationships between money, power and characters from different political camps, including the Brazilian right.

If scandals of this scale had only left-wing politicians as protagonists, it is difficult to imagine that the reaction would be the same. And it is precisely this difference that is interesting here and perhaps helps us understand something deeper. For a good number of so-called “good men”, corruption works as a justification for a much greater rejection of what the Brazilian left has also come to represent.

And what, after all, did this left come to represent? The poor northeastern man without a university degree reaching the Presidency of the Republic. Black people entering universities and occupying prominent positions. Women running companies, courts and governments. Homosexuals forming families and demanding that their relationships be treated with the same dignity as heterosexual relationships. African-based religions demanding the same respect given to Christian religions.

Perhaps it is exactly at this point that the rejection of these groups meets the rejection of the left, the PT and everything they generically call communism, as prejudice rarely presents itself by saying its own name.

Nobody says “I’m racist”, but “I have nothing against black people, I’m just against quotas”. It doesn’t say “I’m homophobic”, but “everyone does what they want, they just don’t need to show it”. He doesn't say he considers women inferior. But the firm woman is “hysterical”, while the man with the same behavior is “a leader”. He doesn't say he despises people from the Northeast, but he turns origin and accent into a laughing stock. He doesn't say he despises the poor, but he uses the lack of a diploma to make them inferior.

There is always a “but”. Perhaps it is precisely after this “but” that the conversation that Brazilian society avoids having with itself begins. Of course, the problem is not being white, heterosexual, Christian and/or conservative. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. I myself have these characteristics. The problem begins when someone turns their own way of existing into the standard by which everyone else should be judged. That's exactly where the different starts to bother you.

Thus, black people can exist, as long as they do not claim space in medicine and in the courts. Gay people can exist, as long as they hide their family. A woman can work, as long as she is not in charge. The poor deserve respect, as long as they remain in the place reserved for them. Other religions may even exist, as long as they do not demand the same recognition and respect dedicated to the Christian religion.

This is possibly why the great social transformation of recent decades has produced so much resentment among so-called conservative citizens. People who were historically on the margins began to occupy the center and conquer spaces of power, prestige and recognition. But what about corruption, what does it have to do with all this? It offers a perfect alibi for politically rejecting these transformations without having to say out loud the real reason: a morally acceptable justification for a rejection whose origins may lie elsewhere.

This may also explain the indignation of so many people at those who still choose to vote for the left or the PT. The argument is usually corruption, as if this vote meant agreeing with something that did not exist on the other side. However, many of these same voters are aware of the scandals and cases of corruption involving politicians for whom they vote.

It is in this contradiction that the justification for corruption loses strength. For a good portion of these people, it is probably not corruption that makes voting for the left so unacceptable, but what this vote has come to represent: a more plural society, with black people occupying spaces of power, women in command, northeasterners governing, homosexuals forming families and different religions living together with equal dignity.

None of this absolves the left and the PT of their own mistakes. Corruption must be investigated and punished, regardless of who it is. But anyone who really fights corruption on principle should not choose the intensity of their indignation depending on the color of their shirt, whether red or green and yellow.

This is precisely where corruption stops explaining everything. In the end, for a good portion of the right, especially for its most extreme part, corruption is perhaps just the enemy that can be publicly confessed. The others have names that are much more difficult to admit in front of the mirror: racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and religious intolerance.

Murilo Gonçalves, public servant and lawyer working in public law