General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The U.S.’s shameful silence on Brazil: The insane hypocrisy of the right-wing coup can’t be [View all]BainsBane
(57,746 posts)but that still doesn't make it a coup, which is the violent overthrow of a government. Corruption allegations had to do with Petrobras rather than her individually, and ironically the new president has a slew of allegations of corruption against him. Clearly it's a power grab by the right, but it was not a military overthrow of a government.
In theory, impeachment is a charge brought before the Camara dos Deputados and the Senado convicts, not unlike our own system. If the Senate had convicted Bill Clinton, it would not have been a coup, even though it would have been a brazen partisan maneuver. There is a difference. Now this may well work to undermine political stability in Brazil, but again it is not the kind of military coup that Brazil has seen a number of times in its history (1889 and 1964, most notably).
From what I've read, she will likely be convicted for political reasons. The economic deterioration is what underlies all this. Without the worsening economic situation, the right would not have been able to get away with it.
I will also point out that Greenwald's claim the PT has governed in the name of the poor is not accurate. Lula was elected with the support of the economic elite, and the PT would not have been able to even gain power let alone hold it for a decade if they were primarily focused on the poor. The wealthy in Brazil are far too powerful for that to happen. The PT's appeal was much broader, and they continued to stay in office because the economy grew. The fact is the PT government is the longest serving since the transition to democracy.