The social struggles of Brazil’s landless agricultural workers and small producers over the past two decades have developed in the broader context of a general resurgence of popular movements. This resurgence began in the late 1970s, toward the tail end of the 1964-1985 military dictatorship, and was stimulated by a number of factors, three of which stand out. First, the political liberalization which characterized the final years of the dictatorship and the gradual development of the conditions leading to the Brazilian political transition opened space for active social protest. Second, progressive sectors of the Catholic Church not only lent an ethical-religious endorsement to the mobilization of rural workers under the canons of Liberation Theology, but also offered broad operational and logistical support to the incipient social movements. And third, the intense capitalist modernization of the rural areas of central and southern Brazil wrought profound social and economic changes that fueled rising social protest.
This latter factor was particularly significant, as the development policies of the military governments in the 1970s transformed Brazil’s productive structure, creating extraordinary economic growth while greatly exacerbating inequality. The annual growth rate of Brazil’s gross national product (GNP) reached 8.9% during the 1970s, a marked contrast from the 2.4% and 1.9% average growth rates of the 1980s and 1990s. In the meantime, however, income inequality worsened dramatically, and today Brazil has one of the most unequal income distributions in the world: While the wealthiest 10% commands 47.5% of total income, the poorest 40% has only 9.2% of total income. By way of comparison, the same social groups in neighboring Uruguay enjoy 25.8% and 22% of total income respectively. Moreover, the productive and technological changes introduced through the military’s program of capitalist modernization undermined opportunities for rural employment. As the agricultural frontier advanced, the availability of “free land” declined, forcing the price of land upward. The traditional forms of social reproduction—family farming and subsistence agriculture—declined in modernized areas and quickly became untenable. Even without other processes of social differentiation and economic pressure on smallholders, this factor alone—the exhaustion of the usual forms of social reproduction—generated intense migrations from rural areas in the 1970s. Around 30 million people left the Brazilian countryside between 1960 and 1980, migrating mainly to emerging industrial sectors or, motivated by colonization policies, to new agricultural regions in the north.
Nevertheless, many families chose to remain in their native rural areas. In the face of precarious living and working conditions, the rural poor began to exert social pressure in their efforts to obtain access to land. It was in this historical context that the landless movement in Brazil was born. A growing “surplus” rural population, the activism and organizational support of sectors of the Catholic Church, and the climate of political liberalization at the end of military rule all gave birth to new social forces demanding agrarian reform, the extension of rights to the countryside, and the democratization of rural society. The Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST) arose in southern Brazil, and was formally constituted in 1984. During that same period, the so-called “union movement of small producers,” consisting of two sometimes rival groups—one affiliated with the Unified Workers’ Federation (CUT), and the other under the tutelage of the official, government-sponsored union structure—also incorporated the defense of agrarian reform into its political agenda. The diversity of organizational structures explains the degree to which the actions of the small-producer unions have varied from state to state. In some regions they have been quite bold, even resorting to land occupations, whereas in others, they have maintained moderate political stances that have almost always been limited to negotiations with the government.
In any case, of the rural social movements and organizations that have emerged in recent years, the most active organization in the Brazilian countryside has been the MST. It has the strongest social identity and has been capable of clearly defining and motivating its social base. This is so even though its social base is made up of the poorest of the poor in the countryside—usually social groups that are only intermittently employed, lack permanent housing, have low levels of formal education, and are easily victimized by political manipulation.
Organized on a national level since the mid-1980s, the movement has had a surprising capacity to position itself in response to changes in the larger political landscape, demonstrating a creativity unmatched by other rural organizations. This adaptability and political savvy has permitted the MST to remain an effective organization with relatively well-defined goals. It has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for mobilization, and its actions receive a great deal of attention from the media and the political establishment in general. Among other successes, through pressure it has brought to bear on the federal land reform program, the MST has helped establish more than 1,300 new rural settlements throughout Brazil. It has also contributed to the democratization of social life in several rural regions of the country, creating opportunities for occupations and access to land for thousands of families and spurring the economy in many small rural municipalities.
At the risk of oversimplification, the history of the MST can be divided into three principal stages. The first and formative period was the early 1980s, when the first “landless” groups were organized, primarily in the southern states of Brazil. The movement’s formal organizational structure was created in 1984. In this initial phase, it benefited from the strong presence of religious mediators—including some who acted at the leadership level—and in general opted for less confrontational pressure tactics. For the most part, the organization chose to dialogue with its principal adversaries which, until 1985, were state and local governments. Things would begin to change after that year, when the first national civilian government was elected since 1964. In this first phase, given the presence of the Church, the MST adhered to the principles of nonviolence. In response to the growing land disputes and the often violent reactions on the part of landowners, the federal government adopted agrarian reform as part of its political agenda. In this period, the movement had little difficulty recruiting farmers who had little or no land, and the organization grew quickly. Few settlements were formed, but those that were established served as a powerful impetus to broaden the mobilizing capacity of the MST.
In the second phase, from 1986 to 1993, the movement gradually became more confrontational. Clashes with military forces and armed gunmen hired by large property owners became increasingly frequent, as the MST leaders began to favor the tactic of responding to violence exerted against the movement. It was during this period that many landless agricultural workers began refusing to recognize the leadership role that had been played by Catholic Church mediators, and the Church conception of a mass organization gradually gave way to a membership—or cadre—organization. Soon the MST was no longer a “social movement” in the strict sociological sense, and increasingly functioned as a formal political organization representing the landless on a national level.
By this time, the MST had expanded its activities into other regions of the country, and transferred its headquarters to São Paulo. Until 1988, it negotiated primarily with the federal government, but as the government dropped its policy of prioritizing solutions for the landless, the organization abandoned its hope of extensive government-sanctioned land expropriations. At the same time, however, this was the period of greatest practical results, with the number of settlements growing significantly. By the early 1990s, primarily because of the rapid growth of the settlements, the movement faced a pressing issue: how to organize production in these new areas, make the settlements economically viable and present them as “model areas.” This question provoked intense ideological debates, and in many settlements the MST imposed completely collectivized cooperatives, most of which were later deactivated.
The third phase encompasses the years from mid-1994 to the present, and has presented the MST with a series of new challenges. Over this period, the MST has quarreled with other rural organizations and movements over ideological questions and strategies for the transformation of society. In addition, the new reality of the settlements, which now exist in large numbers, has required immediate solutions for the technical organization of production and the political organization of producers in these areas. At the same time, the MST gradually established a strong presence in the state of São Paulo, where the country’s most influential social and political sectors were concentrated. It managed to consolidate its presence in São Paulo by organizing in a large rural area within that state, Pontal do Paranapanema. This was an ideal location, as land in this area had become property of the federal government after state courts rejected fraudulent attempts by wealthy landowners to occupy the land for themselves, meaning that private landowners no longer had the right to appeal expropriations. The MST targeted this area for land occupations, while landowners counted on the state’s turning a blind eye to their continued presence in the area. By taking this approach in Brazil’s most influential state, the MST gained even greater visibility in the debate on agrarian reform and became the obligatory spokesperson on this issue as well as on the settlements. These events were dramatized in a nightly soap opera which depicted landless workers as sympathetic central characters—an astonishing development given that the show ran on Rede Globo, the television network that holds a virtual monopoly on Brazilian mass communications.
In this most recent phase, the MST’s political power and capacity for mobilization has increased as landowners have reacted violently to the group’s organizing efforts. This is not entirely surprising given the confrontational posture the movement has adopted as its principal tool of struggle. Two incidents in northern states in 1995 and 1996 were particularly decisive in triggering social pressure in favor of agrarian reform. The first episode, in which ten rural workers were assassinated by military police, took place in August 1995, in Corumbiara, in the state of Rondônia. In the second incident, which took place the following April in Eldorado dos Carajás, in the state of Pará, a confrontation with military police resulted in the death of 19 rural workers. In neither case have the accused been brought to trial. The following year, in April 1997, a huge march to Brasília brought tremendous pressure to bear on the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995- ), which was forced to push through a package of concessions for the landless that year.
In the latter half of the 1990s, the movement’s activities expanded in some agrarian regions and receded in others. Currently, the MST has a significant presence in the northeastern states of Ceara, Pernambuco and Sergipe, but is relatively insignificant in most of the north and center-west, except for Mato Grosso do Sul and some parts of Goiás. In the center of the country, it was always strong in Espírito Santo and is now growing in Minas Gerais and São Paulo. In the south, where it originated, it is the most solid organization of rural workers and small producers.
It is probably relevant to note the two greatest challenges currently facing the MST. First is the problem of democracy. The organization is beginning to face growing dissent and conflicts, both internally, and in its relations with other social movements and organizations in the so-called “popular arena.” In the latter case this is due to widening political and ideological differences. In several states local groups actively compete with the MST for the affiliation of rural landless workers, although none of them has a national presence. Signs of internal conflicts are also evident. The militarist ethos and quasi-religious devotion of some mid-level militants commanded by a small group of national leaders may not be sufficient to assure control over the settlements emerging out of land invasions, especially settlements that have already been established.
The other challenge that has emerged with increasing urgency is the productive management of the new settlements that have multiplied throughout the country over the past decade. Without analyzing the issue in detail, especially the broader question of conditions that are increasingly unfavorable to agricultural production, it is important to note that the proposals for improving production made thus far have not convincingly addressed the daily problems faced by poor families trying to live off the land.
Over the past decade, the MST has achieved a growing national political presence and relative success in obtaining its social demands through government decisions, as well as a growing influence on the left. On the other hand, it is encountering a number of new challenges. It has not coordinated its actions with other organizations for the rural poor—which would strengthen the movement politically—nor has it found commercial or productive solutions for the smallholders it organizes, thus failing to guarantee their ability to sustain a livelihood. The MST must resolve these problems in the very near future if it is to continue to play a creative and dynamic role in Brazilian politics.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zander Navarro is Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil. He has written extensively on rural issues in Brazil, especially on rural social movements. His newest book, co-authored by Jonathan Fox, is entitled Lutas sociais, organiza?ões rurais e democracia no campo (os casos do México e do Rio Grande do Sul) (Editora da Universidade, forthcoming). Translated from the Portuguese by Judy Rein.
