Spirit of Odorico Paraguaçu is alive, says lawyer, about electoral harassment

by

The increase in complaints of electoral harassment shows that the spirit of Odorico Paraguaçu, the mayor of Sucupira, played by Paulo Gracindo in the soap opera O Bem-Amado, is still alive, says lawyer Alexandre Rollo, who specializes in electoral law.

“The halter vote has always existed and unfortunately continues to exist in the 21st century. In the last century we had the issue of coronelismo. For example, Odorico Paraguaçu, he constrains Sucupira voters to vote or not vote for a certain candidate. there should be more of this type of situation”, he said in a panel organized by the Electoral Observatory Commission of the OAB-SP (Brazilian Bar Association in São Paulo) to discuss electoral harassment, this Friday (21).

These are bosses who threaten layoffs, change schedules to prevent employees from voting, ask these workers to film their choices at the ballot box, predict bankruptcies and even promise extra wages depending on the outcome of the elections: the cases of electoral harassment registered by the MPT (Ministry of Work Public) were already over 900 on Thursday (20), ten days into the second shift.

“Harassment has always existed. There was even talk of the halter vote, which used to exist. Now, society has become more complex, there are more people, more companies, there is technology. Communication has increased and we are knowing more things, being able to act more efficiently”, said the regional electoral attorney in São Paulo, Paula Bajer, the data reflect a greater visibility of this type of conduct.

According to the Brazilian electoral glossary, from the TSE (Superior Electoral Court), in the halter vote, the voter does not choose his candidate. The one who makes the choice is a political chief or an electoral corporal. In this practice, in general, voters were all taken together to the polling station – and that is why the halter vote is also associated with the term “electoral corral”.

Individually, employers and employees do not lose the right to have their preferences for this or that candidate. The problem, says employment judge Lorena Colnago, is when this is done within the workplace.

Companies cannot be actively involved in election campaigns. They cannot make donations or campaign. Who can is the individual, the physical person. As a result, the use of pins, t-shirts, caps or stickers is prohibited, and the employer who makes this type of demand can be criminally framed, for the harassment provided for in the electoral code, but also in the labor sphere.

In the event of an electoral crisis, there is even a provision for imprisonment, in addition to the company being subject to sanctions such as a ban on borrowing money from public banks. The possibility of arrest was mentioned by the current president of the TSE, Alexandre de Moraes, in a meeting to discuss the topic last Tuesday (18): “When they arrest two or three, they stop quickly”.

For Rollo, the current political polarization has a potential effect on voters’ decision to take more radical positions in favor of their party-political preferences. “It ends up causing candidate A’s team to end up getting more involved and screwing up in favor of this candidate and against B and vice versa,” he says.

In the assessment of electoral prosecutor Bajer, the maturation of voters weighs more than polarization. Today, unlike what happened 20 years ago, the production of evidence is easier: an audio recording, a video on a social network, an exchange of messages by application.

“It is clearer for people which situations are harassment. There is greater awareness, people are learning to communicate. Using the internet has made it much easier, you can report anonymously, all of this is heavy”, he says.

Judge Lorena Colnago says that harassment can come either from the hierarchical superior – the boss, in fact – or horizontally, when other employees embarrass or threaten someone because of their preferences. “We see complaints of exclusion of a worker who thought differently. This kind of thing tarnishes freedom of civic expression.”

The president of the OAB-SP Electoral Observatory Commission, Maíra Recchia, also recalls that companies have strict responsibility for the acts of their employees.

Therefore, even if the harassment comes from someone other than the owner of the company, the company is liable for the failure to reprimand this type of conduct. “It must be clear that the threat to the freedom of the vote is a threat to democracy itself.”

WHERE TO REPORT ELECTORAL HARASSMENT:

You May Also Like

Recommended for you