Ten years ago, the de () for vote produced a tangible image of what is often the abstract concept of polarization.
A wall made of metal plates, built on the lawn of the Esplanada dos Ministérios, divided crowds wearing yellow t-shirts that day, in favor of the removal of the then president, and red ones, resisting what they called a “coup”. Without the divider, who knows what tragedy could occur.
Since then, the country has never been able to find itself at the center again, in what is perhaps the most lasting legacy of that historic moment.
Dilma’s impeachment crowned the birth of the so-called “new right”, which assumed itself as such after having spent decades uncomfortably housed in parties that represented anti-PTism more than genuine conservatism.
The president’s dismissal was also the seed that would give rise to the movement formed by her surname two years later.
At that time, however, the then federal deputy and retired Army captain was still just a folkloric supporting character.
His participation in Dilma’s removal was limited to praising a military torturer at the time of voting () and being . It is symptomatic that the editing of Sheet the day after the impeachment dedicated two lines to the future president, summarizing him as a “controversial deputy, idol of the extreme right”.
Polarization also invaded the vocabulary, never to leave. “Coup” acquired a new meaning, to encompass even perfectly constitutional attitudes, however debatable they may be. Referring to Dilma as “presidenta” or “president” already gave away which side the person was on.
Social networks did not yet dominate the political cycle as they do today, nor did they have the toxic load that they would acquire before the end of that decade. But they were no longer irrelevant to the public debate and helped to popularize nicknames like “Bessias”, a nickname that never left the current STF nominee Jorge Messias.
Lula’s “bye, darling” to Dilma became an opposition slogan at the time of the vote – ten years ago it was an intercepted phone call, today it would probably be an audio sent via WhatsApp.
less than a month after the Chamber session (and definitely after the vote in August), he also marked his name in posterity with the letter in which he lamented being a “decorative vice”, his predilection for Latin expressions (“verba volant, scripta manent”), his mesoclises and his curious ballet with his hands during speeches and interviews.
And how can we forget his desire for “may God have mercy on this nation”, when contemplating the outcome of the process that triggered it?
Impeachment marked the country in other ways that are still reflected today. It was a moment of affirmation for the centrão, a bloc of deputies with little ideology that was the basis of support for the Temer government. His power has never stopped growing since then, boosted by the .
It was in the impeachment that Dilma’s minister until the day before his removal and Temer’s minister shortly after he took office.
He was also one of those who lent staff and prestige to the new president, appointing, for example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
No less symptomatic, the saga that removed the first female head of state in republican history took place under the shadow of factors that weighed much more on the outcome of the process than the formal pretext of fiscal pedaling.
Today, it is already compared in size to the scandal of ten years ago. The difference is that its political impact is still unpredictable.
