This is a linkpost for the article The Groundswell: How an unprecedented mobilization forced the Brazilian government to pay basic income to its poorest citizens in a matter of days.
It's a translation of an article published in the edition #164 of the Piauí Magazine, on May - a first hand account of an activist on how social and political pressure made the Brazilian government finally decide to implement an emergency basic income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
First, this article might concern those interested in the current social and political impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly in Brazil. Second, it is relevant for EAs interested in advocacy and lobby: it tells a more accurate story than the narrative the government is currently trying to build for electoral motives (which seems to me unaddressed by international press); this suggests that activists should be aware of the possibility of governments using their ideas and movements this way. Third, it's an example of a case where a social mobilisation was successful in bringing beneficial social change by pressuring politicians - in a place where this is not very common; it apparently confirms that lobbying might be particularly useful in 'hingey' moments.
Also, I'd like to highlight its 'lows': it underscores the contribution of politicians and bureaucrats to the implementation of the current emergency basic income - probably, it would be higher than the R$ 200 proposed by the Finance Minister, but it'd very likely be way worse without both that suport and social pressure. Also, it's worth disclosing 'conflicts of interest': the author, Alessandra Orofino, directs the HBO show Greg News (inspired by John Oliver's Last Week Tonight), which is openly in favor of basic income programs and critical to the current government.
Finally, though this magazine is internationally acknowledged for the quality of its art, content and text (well, it's funded and managed by a billionaire philanthropist and documentary-maker, so they don't seem very concerned with appealing to the general public), it's also openly critical to the government, and even has recently published an article accusing the President of having decided to intervene in the Supreme Court during a meeting on May 22 in response to the possibility of the Court ordering him to deliver his cellphone - before he was talked down by retired Army Generals who serve as Ministers. Notice that, on the same day, the Minister of Institutional Security (with oversight over Intelligence services) oficially stated that apprehending the President's cellphone could lead to unpredictable consequences for national stability.
