Commentary:
By Dr. Sean W. Burges

Major international sporting events like the World Cup are about far more than the thrilling competition between elite athletes. The mega-sporting event has become a sort of graduation ceremony for emerging market countries pioneered by the Olympic movement, most recently with Seoul in 1988 and Beijing in 2008.

FIFA has recently jumped on this politicised train and even tried to steal a step on the International Olympic Committee, which selected Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Summer Games. South Africa was given the 2010 World Cup as a clear sign that it had become a ‘’grown up’’ country and reliable partner, logic repeated in the decision to have a roaring Brazil host the tournament in 2014.

While there is certainly much to celebrate in Brazil today, the story told by FIFA is quite narrow and reflects its commercialisation of soccer over the accessibility that makes the game so globally appealing. Compliance with FIFA’s business plan and provision of FIFA-approved infrastructure has proven the essential host nation criteria. Considerations of democratic governance and social inclusion are peripheral concerns that local police forces should sweep under the rug in the plush VIP stadium boxes.

Directly responding to the Brazilian case, FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke clarified his organisation’s view of democracy: ‘’Less democracy is sometimes better for organising a World Cup.’’ Casting further doubt on FIFA’s democratic understanding, he explained why he loved the 1978 World Cup in Argentina: ‘’[It] was a kind of reconciliation of the public, of the people of Argentina, with the system, the political system, the military system at the time.’’

These thoughts are extremely hard to reconcile with FIFA’s ‘’Fair Play’’ campaign or the human rights basis for its anti-racism rhetoric. Over 30,000 people were killed or ‘’disappeared’’ by the Argentine military government. While less violent, Brazil itself suffered 21 years of repressive military rule, including the torture of current president Dilma Rousseff.

As crass and ill-considered as Valcke’s comments may be, they go a long way to explaining why the Brazilian people are loudly protesting the expense of their World Cup. Preparations for the event by the leftist Workers Party government have resulted in numerous instances of repression and police violence that revive nightmares of the military years.

But it is policy failures that dominate, with Brazilians loudly asking how their country can spend $20 billion on two mega sporting events but not ensure children can read or see a doctor when needed. Disquiet has turned to rage as costs have spiraled and the promised social benefits – better airports, working public transportation, sustainable and inclusive urban reform – have failed to materialise.

While similar questions were heard before South Africa’s World Cup, the major difference in the Brazilian case is the thing which seems to make Valcke most uncomfortable: a large and growing middle class actively exercising its democratic rights.

Valcke’s and FIFA’s problem is a failure to understand that democracy is not just a strong elected president.

This is particularly important for understanding Brazil, which does not have the sort of single-member electoral districts found in Australia. Instead, federal deputies and senators are elected for wide geographic areas on a proportional basis from party lists. Voters have no idea who their ‘’representative’’ is and deputies and senators do not have to worry about answering to a specific set of constituents and are thus largely unaccountable. Fed up with being ignored by their politicians, the people are turning to the street to voice their frustration.

Brazilians genuinely love soccer. Indeed, there is a deep love throughout the country of sport in general.

There is also real pride that Brazil is hosting the World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games as recognition of the enormous positive changes that have taken place throughout the country.

But Brazilians are also deeply aware that their country is inexcusably failing to deliver basic services like education, health care and reliable public transportation to the vast majority of the population despite eye-wateringly high income taxes. Where, they ask, has their money gone? Has the government chosen stadiums overs schools and games over health care?

Just a few months after the last whistle of the World Cup, Brazilians will go to the polls for a general election. The World Cup promises to be a thrilling test for the world’s best soccer players. It is already proving to be a crash course in democracy, one that FIFA and its Brazilian government allies are failing badly.

Sean W. Burges is author of the book Brazilian Foreign Policy After the Cold War. Reprinted from The Canberra Times http://www.canberratimes.com.au/