Fernanda Alcântara contributed to this interview
In her first term as a federal deputy, Erika Hilton (Socialism and Freedom Party, also known as Psol, São Paulo state), one of the only two transgender women in the Brazilian Congress, says the debates in that House have not made it possible to advance the agendas her party and political coalition advocate for.
According to her, the far right and the right wing have the power needed to advance projects that she considers setbacks for society. However, these ideas have popular support due to the Bolsonarist tactic "to act very much by identification, however bad that may be". "Society has these values dormant within it: racism, hatred of LGBT people, hatred of social minorities," she points out.
According to Hilton, the articulations between allied federal deputies have been more about "blocking" projects than approving proposals. "What we are doing now in the National Congress – both the Chamber of Federal Deputies and the Senate – is dialog, and I say this as the leader of the Psol and Rede Party caucus. We talk to the leaders of the two Houses, make necessary obstructions and stop these projects," she says.
Erika says that in the vote that upheld the arrest of deferral deputy Chiquinho Brazão, accused of being the mastermind of Marielle Franco's murder, the vote kept him in jail because there was "embarrassment" among the parliament members.
According to her, this doesn't happen when other agendas, such as agrarian reform or the legalization of drugs, come up.
She took part in a debate at Casa Popular, downtown São Paulo. Invited by the Landless Workers' Movement (MST, in Portuguese) and the BR Cidades network, in partnership with the Popular Brazil Project, the Brazilian publisher house Expressão Popular, Fiocruz and Armazém do Campo, she spoke to representatives of social movements.
Read the interview.
We are watching the rise of neo-Nazi groups both in Brazil and in other regions of the world. What concrete action can be taken to bring back the progressive waves? How much do you see it changing?
[Things are] Changing slowly, but changing. Indeed, we have in Brazil and around the world a brutal rise of neo-fascism and the far right, which are legitimated even by many outlets such as X [formerly Twitter], which validates these ideas, as the Republicans have recently done with the list of X profiles blocked in the United States.
This is fed and strengthened by billionaires. [They feed] These anti-democratic, anti-human rights, anti-minority ideas. We need to understand the mechanisms, the language and the sophistication that we must develop to place ourselves as leaders and trustworthy people in society.
Sometimes, we need to take a few steps back from the radicalized debate, from the theoretical and deep debate, and look people in the eye to talk to them about their reality.
To unmask with simplicity and truth the fantasies painted by the far right and by this whole Machiavellian structure, which flirts with the [idea of] family, child, religion and private protection of land.
All of this feeds, moves and seduces easier than the debate about what the left wing promotes, for instance, the end of the military police or the legalization of drugs. These are important debates, but they need to present contents that reach the poor neighborhoods and those old ladies who go to the Church.
These old ladies I mentioned don’t want drugs to be legalized. They don’t want an end to the military police, because what's being painted on that other side is terrorism.
We have to say it somehow, but I don't have a recipe for doing it. But I know that’s the way forward, what language we're going to use to communicate.
We need to explore WhatsApp groups, Telegram groups, the internet. We need to project ourselves beyond the structural dullness that is politics, which is often seen on the Brazilian left.
We have to be attractive. We need a renewed political platform, which connects with the current times because, otherwise, we're going to lose once again.
Fascism is not dead. Bolsonarism is not dead. Bolsonaro lost the elections, but he hasn't lost his political strength. We see it being manifested in proposals presented in the Chamber of Deputies. We can foresee how municipal elections are going to be, which are extremely important elections to demarcate this [presence].
Bolsonarism wants to show its strength now, in 2024, in municipal elections across the country. As the left, we are working on building solid candidacies for mayors and city councilors to stand up to these people. With a realistic agenda, a real discourse that goes this way without giving up our principles. We want the legalization of marijuana (which is currently being discussed at the Supreme Court), decarceration, an end to the militarization of the police. But how do I communicate this in such a polarized world?
I think that if we look at these places, we find ways of putting ourselves forward as leaders, of not fighting the structural values in place in society.
You can't change things overnight. That's gradual, slow. People have previous perspectives. We can't just say "Man, no, everything's different now".
I think it's by groping our way through this, which has become very open. However, I think the debate is broader. We can tackle all of this by debunking fake news, informing people, bringing the truth, reaching people and making them identify with it.
Bolsonarism acts very much by identification, however bad that may be. Society has these values dormant within it: racism, hatred of LGBT people, and hatred of social minorities. Social minorities themselves sometimes reproduce these ideas, which is Paulo Freire's phrase: "When education is not liberating, the oppressed want to be oppressors". And this is reflected in the identification these groups have with these political platforms.
What is our role in this? How do we create an identification with them? I have my formula, others will have theirs. All approaches are welcome. However, we need to look at this responsibly and urgently, because they are knocking on the door.
How can we implement progressive agendas in Congress?
There are no answers. We're trying to learn every day how to break the bubble, stop the setback, get votes to pass legislation and public policies that are important.
We had a vote on the arrest of federal deputy [Chiquinho] Brazão that was very tight, but there was a different arrangement that united political parties to some extent and constrained those deputies who voted differently. And even so, the vote was tight.
Agendas such as agrarian reform, social movements demands and land occupation are not constraining to them. On the contrary, they still find support in society, which is driven by prejudice, misinformation and the supposed fear of invaders.
What we are doing now in the National Congress – both the Chamber of Federal Deputies and the Senate – is dialog, and I say this as the leader of the Psol and Rede Party caucuses. We talk to the leaders of the two Houses, make necessary obstructions and stop these projects.
You asked me how to approve it [leftist bills]. I'm trying to find that answer, but what we're trying to do with this success [Lula’s victory in the 2022 presidential election] at the moment is to put the brakes on [the far right].
If we can't approve it, let's not let it pass. Let's not let it advance. I don't have a clear answer to this, but I hope that at the end of our four-year term, ready for the next legislature, we'll be able to understand how we're going to be able to approve important policies.
But without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most important steps is for people to vote with conscience, for people to vote for real candidates, for people to vote for real representatives. Because it's only by changing the face of Congress that we can change all this radicalism.
I'd like to hear your analysis of the role of the government and people’s movements like the MST, and how agrarian reform is an ally in the fight against hunger.
Land reform is a great ally in the fight against hunger. Occupying [lands] in order to feed people, and produce quality food that reaches everyone. Land is not an idle space, but has an active social function, which is what the MST preaches.
[We must] Use the land so that it produces food and housing and is useful for people. And it's quality food, not just about food, but that food arrives.
In the last electoral campaign, we saw a policy of pesticides, a policy of food poisoning. And the sentence Occupy to Feed is exactly what it is about. Occupy for good, healthy food production and quality food from family farming.
Firstly, the government's role is to strengthen the decriminalization of these movements. We have seen, including in the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI, in Portuguese) on the MST, bills that entered the Chamber's agenda last week that criminalize social movements.
I think the government needs to strengthen these movements, strengthen these policies and expand policies to combat hunger, also at the state level, with family farming. I think movements have an important role to play, and the government has an important role to play. We need to join forces.
Hunger is not an identity or political issue, but not tackling it is a political issue. It is not tackled precisely because of political interests. There is food to feed people, and there is land enough to produce food for people. This land does not produce food. That food doesn't get where it needs to go. Politics still controls and organizes itself through hunger, violence, and precarious access to basic items such as food, water, health and education.
When we look at these fronts and make the Executive power and the parliament look at and understand the magnitude of this sentence [Occupy to Feed, MST motto in this year’s Red April], we can consolidate spaces within society to fight hunger.
And not just with welfare policies, but with structural changes: and for planting, space for people to plant, quality food reaching the tables of those who need it.
Edited by: Rodrigo Gomes
