Miguel Carter has brought together, in a single volume, a fascinating, comprehensive and timely collection that examines the Landless Rural Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra [MST]). The book explores the emergence and role of the MST and the ongoing struggle for agrarian reform within the context of large-scale socioeconomic inequality, a factor that has historically shaped social conflict in rural Brazil. Drawing on extensive multidisciplinary research by scholars in Europe, the United States, and Latin America, a main theme of the chapters focuses on the activities of Latin America’s largest and most expressive social movement and the constraints of implementing a comprehensive project of agrarian reform as well as the socioeconomic and political impact of the MST on Brazilian society.
The book is organized into four sections. The first part examines the issue of agrarian reform and the emergence of rural social movements in a historical perspective, underscoring the role of the Catholic Church and popular mobilization in rural Brazil. The second part explores the emergence of the MST and its actions in different regions throughout Brazil. The third part focuses on the organization of rural land settlements and the process of building community among the landless, in a local and regional perspective. The fourth part investigates the political and social impact and implications of the MST in Brazilian society, which has, since its emergence, continuously contested prevailing notions of individual rural property ownership. The body of work presented by the authors makes an important contribution to the current literature, providing a critical view into the regional differences ranging from the well-to-do south to the impoverished north and northeastern regions of Brazil. The collection provides in-depth analytical studies that integrate investigative research and firsthand in-loco surveys of Brazil’s most vibrant social movement.
Challenging Social Inequality provides a rich account of the complex interactions between the MST and other social movements, underscoring the importance of building solidarity among distinct groups with an array of competing interests, demands, and political projects. In this sense, the movement’s long- and short-term strategy and tactics, land occupations, and cultural, political, and economic agenda are intricate components of a larger political project that seeks to expand the political participation of sectors of Brazilian population that have been historically left on the sidelines of society. This debate is particularly important when examining the role of the MST in politics and society.
One noteworthy feature of the collection explores the complex relations between the MST and institutional politics under the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 1995–2003, Social Democratic Party (Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira [PSDB]), and the governments of Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva, 2003–2010, and Dilma Rouseff, 2011 to present—the two latter of the Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores [PT]). One of the more arguable issues raised by the collections editor and the focus of the book’s epilogue examines the relationship between the MST and the PT, traditionally historic allies in Brazilian politics.
The authors explore the role of land reform in Brazilian politics and society, focusing on two crucial issues. First, they provide the broader political arguments driving the agrarian reform movement, particularly how activists shape their demands within the scope of national politics. The claims of rural activists are grounded, in large part, on the article of the Brazilian constitution that states that rural land ownership must exercise a social function—that is, the ownership of unoccupied or unused land held for purely speculative reasons can be the object of challenge. The second moment examines the continued pressure by the MST on national governments, particularly the PT presidencies (2003–present), because of the party’s historical defense of land reform.
Sue Branford focuses on the repeated attempts by the Cardoso administration to challenge the MST’s legitimacy. She argues that between the first and second Cardoso administrations there was a radical shift in how agrarian reform conflicts were resolved; ultimately, Cardoso moved away from supporting agrarian reform to favor of market-oriented solutions (p. 336), a critique she extends to subsequent PT administrations. Similarly, Miguel Carter’s assessment of the three PT administrations (2003–present) asserts that the party’s commitment to agrarian reform was weak at best. He argues that although there was expansive support during Lula’s first administration (2003–2006), from his second term to the present administration of Dilma Rouseff (2010–present) the government has blatantly favored agribusiness over agrarian reform and family farming (small holdings) initiatives. He argues, “The PT’s rural development policies have retained a highly lopsided support for the countries agribusiness farmers…on average each corporate estate received US$356,729 to US$9,079 for each family farmer” (p. 415).
Branford’s and Carter’s claims, however, are weak at best and fail to take into consideration the conditions and characteristics under which political and social change occur, as well as to acknowledge the complexities of Brazilian national governments since the country’s return to democracy. This holds true particularly to the later (PT) administrations, which are, in fact, broad political alliances. Both the executive and legislative branches of national government are composed of political forces and parties favorable to the interests of agrarian reform and agribusiness alike. Moreover, in many cases, similar political alliances comprise state executive branches of government, which are further complicated by regional political interests. Politics is messy and never as clear-cut as the authors propose.
Understanding the demand for agrarian reform cannot exist in a vacuum, isolated from the broader socioeconomic and political processes in the country. As the world’s eighth largest economy, Brazil has emerged in recent years as a highly diversified (both industrial and agricultural) economy in which agricultural production plays an important role for both the country’s GDP and the need to maintain a positive balance between import and export economic activity. If anything, and particularly since 2003, the Brazilian government has made significant advances toward reducing the country’s historically high levels of poverty; increasing access to education, health care and housing to millions of Brazilians, both urban and rural; and expanding economic activity and employment. Even after 2013, as the country began facing increasingly greater economic and political–institutional challenges, the fundamental anti-poverty measures adopted by the current government continue in place.
The critical mass necessary to implement and sustain more advanced policies of agrarian reform would necessarily require significant political support in the major urban centers of the country, where the vast majority of Brazilians reside—something that, in recent years, has not been an easy task. The expansion and limits of agrarian reform, as well as state investments in agricultural production and the role of social movements in the process of political transformation, are dependent on building broad political and institutional support beyond immediate stakeholders.
Despite the book’s limited view of politics, Challenging Social Inequality is an important contribution and an important book for those interested in Brazilian history, agrarian politics, and contemporary social movement literature.
