Lawyer Nilo Batista, 82, former governor of Brazil, does not like to be called by the title that the Guanabara Palace gave him.
The rejection is not due to the fact that almost all of them have had legal problems and spent time in prison. But because he sees himself as an “old lawyer and professor of criminal law” currently far from politics.
Despite this, Nile received the Sheet in his office in Glória, south of Rio de Janeiro, on Wednesday (15) to comment on the institutional crisis in the state and the sequence of misfortunes of his successors — all caused by articles of the Penal Code, his specialty.
“I would say that we discussed more ideas and programs. We didn’t discuss it like: ‘Look, let’s privatize Cedae [companhia de água e esgoto] that there will be R$ 15 billion left for us to be re-elected’. Ideology in the sense of a set of political ideas oriented in one direction has been somewhat lost. This is completely healthy in political debate. And this took a break from the political debate in Rio.”
Vice-governor in his second term (1991-1994), Nilo Batista took over the state in 1994 after the incumbent resigned to run for President. The lawyer attributes the constant political crisis in Rio de Janeiro to the defeat of its leader’s political group.
“What won was a mixed salad and, in my opinion, a little indigestible,” he said.
Despite this, he criticizes the decision of the (Supreme Federal Court) to maintain judge Ricardo Couto, president of the Court of Justice, even after the election of (PL) as president of Alerj (Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro).
“The PL deputy must win and then he will settle down in Guanabara and campaign with pen in hand. He will have an advantage. But isn’t that what is in the Constitution?”
He also criticized the STF minister’s statements, linking almost half of Alerj to Jogo do Bicho. “It was necessary for the police to prove it. If we enter into this matter due to irrationality, to produce panic, we enter through the worst possible door.”
What is the origin of the mess in Rio’s political scene?
I am not a political scientist, much less a member of a political force. I’m an old professor of criminal law and an old lawyer. From my experience, I would say that we are still experiencing the effects of the defeat of Brizolismo today.
And who won?
What won was a mixed salad, in my opinion, a little indigestible.
What characteristic of this group leads to this scenario of institutional crisis?
Don’t think about an organic group. From the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, the market was still very strong. So much so that he would re-elect Brizola to succeed Moreira [Franco]for the second term. So, there was a party, a force committed to popular interests.
And why did he lose?
Firstly, a relentless campaign by Globo, which had no limits or containment. And the wear and tear that this campaign produced. Brizola was not elected senator in Rio de Janeiro in the election he took [Marcelo] Crivella to the Senate. Shortly after the result, a journalist asked Brizola what he was going to do now. He said: “I’m thinking about opening a church.”
Is there any structural explanation in Rio de Janeiro for this sequence of arrests?
I do not know the details of any of the criminalizations of these former governors. Even if I knew it, lawyers have a duty not to give their opinion on cases that are managed by their colleagues. I, who was president of the Order, must comply with the code of ethics. But it seems to me that it’s not such an organic thing. Each story is a story. Maybe ambition here, vanity there.
Does politics in Rio have any characteristics that favor this type of problem more than other states?
I would say we discussed more ideas and programs. We didn’t argue like this: “Look, let’s privatize Cedae and there will be R$ 15 billion left for us to be re-elected”. Ideology has been lost a little, in the sense of a set of political ideas oriented in one direction, this is completely healthy in political debate. And this caused a vacation in the political debate in Rio.
There is a specific discussion in the area of public security, in which Brizola’s governments were also exceptions in Rio de Janeiro. Contrary to what they say, it is for our pride.
There are those who say that it was the moment when the factions would have strengthened due to the fact that they had no operations.
He is already 35 years old. Are they weaker today? Only an idiot presents this reasoning as something serious. And São Paulo? Did Brizola govern São Paulo? It only got worse. And, if we continue in this mentality in which the ruler makes punishment the remedy for all social ills, it will only get worse. The examples are in front of us.
How did this security scenario deteriorate?
The stakes in the confrontation only increased. There is outdated legislation. You see the cannabis issue. In the United States, a lot of people make a living from cannabis culture. In almost 30 states, or more, with medicinal use, and more than 20 with authorized recreational use. Here people are dying because of it.
There is a reading, which was debated in the STF, of a link between crime and politics in Rio. Mr. see this link?
The problem is this: crime, this abstraction. It is possible for people who work in an illegal economy to maintain contact or seek to maintain contact. But this statement: “Ah, it says 32 deputies and so on”. The police needed to prove it. Creating panic results in more pity, because it is an irrational thing. If we enter into this issue due to irrationality, the production of panic, we enter through the worst possible door. The difference between the most conspicuous, correct, honest and honest magistrate and the most suspicious deputy is that this deputy was elected by the people.
What is the consequence of this panic scenario?
I think this has consequences for the supreme court’s judgment. Signals a vote in favor of the direct votes. I think that the Judiciary has in the law, and in the law’s maximum capacity for expansion, its maximum limit of intervention. Of course, the law can be expanded. There are valid rhetorical instruments to expand the reach of a law. Now, the maximum semantic meaning of the legal text is the maximum limit that a judge can have. You can’t: “Ah, I don’t like this one, I’m going to appoint another governor.”
Like mr. Do you see Judge Ricardo Couto remaining as governor of the state?
I think it goes against the Constitution if it is maintained. As a brizolista, I’m not suspicious to say. The PL deputy must win [a disputa na Alerj]he will settle down in Guanabara and campaign with pen in hand. You will have an advantage. But isn’t that what’s in the Constitution?
In relation to direct and indirect elections, Mr. Do you have any position?
Not me, the Constitution and the electoral law have a position. Strictly speaking, this election should be indirect. I know that indirect elections lead to the presidency of a parliamentarian from the extreme right. I know this, but I am also a lawyer.
Like this extreme right, like Mr. classifies, should it be faced in Rio de Janeiro?
A good start would be to discuss politics more, to get out of this perspective of the networks of insults and lies. Get out of this gossip and discuss politics. For example, in terms of criminal policy, the left tends to converge with the right. I saw that he would now make tough pronouncements on criminal legislation. I don’t think he takes a vote away from Bolsonarism with this, but he might lose votes.
Did the left lack its own discourse on this topic or did it lack the courage to take over?
Brizola never lacked this courage, nor did many Brizolistas lack the courage to say that nothing good comes from there. How come you still haven’t realized that the penal system is an electoral base for Bolsonarism, on the right? Have they not yet realized that the police, in the Judiciary, in the Public Ministry, have a right-wing electoral base? Has the left not yet realized that the more sand it puts in this truck, it is putting it in the truck that will run over it.
NILO BATISTA, 82
Former governor of Rio de Janeiro (1994), former secretary of Justice and Civil Police (1991-1994) and former president of OAB-RJ (1984-1985). Graduated from the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (1966), master from UFRJ (1997), doctor from Uerj (2009). Full professor of criminal law at UFRJ and Uerj, retired in 2014.
