This page is referenced by:

• 1 2016-03-18T09:04:13-07:00 3.1 | The Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) 14 plain 2016-03-29T18:02:18-07:00 <<< 3 | Brazilian agrarian reform and MST: historical developments

  How did MST arise?

  It was in this context that MST (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra - Landless Rural Workers Movement)—arguably the most significant organized social movement pushing for agrarian reform in Brazil—was born. João Pedro Stedile, an influential leader of MST and member of the CPT national leadership in its early years, remarks that the genesis of MST was determined by three major factors, one of which was the coordinating role of the CPT and its allied religious movements (Stedile, 1999, p. 21). In his opinion, however, the strongest factor was the socio-economical landscape brought about by the ‘modernization’ of Brazilian agriculture during the 1970s. By bringing in mechanization to formerly labor-intensive fields, masses of rural workers started moving either to the “agrarian frontiers”, where they faced extremely harsh conditions; or to urban areas, where the accelerated process of industrialization presented a promise for jobs that nonetheless soon faded (Stedile, 1999, p. 18). Many of those who stayed in rural areas, but had no access to land, became motivated to join a movement, eventually embodied by MST, which pressed for comprehensive agrarian reform.
  
  Furthermore, Stedile argues that the particular political context also needs to be considered as a third explanatory factor for MST’s genesis (Stedile, 1999, p. 25). During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, a number of different voices, both in rural areas and in cities, were expressing discontent with the dictatorship and calling for the re-democratization of the country. As a result, some of the actions that led to the foundation of MST received unprecedented levels of support; for example, more than 30,000 people from all over Brazil were present in one of the first occupations of unproductive private land, in Rio Grande do Sul. By inscribing itself in the wider context of democratization and political inclusion, the rural workers movement enhanced its visibility and capability to mobilize great masses of people [1].

  (Photos: Sebastião Salgado | Collection: Terra)

  MST was formally founded in 1984, at a CPT-sponsored conference in Cascavel, in the southern state of Paraná, which brought together social movement representatives, rural worker union leaders and intellectuals. One interviewee told us that a group of “MST thinkers” (as he calls them) was already active before this event, studying previously unsuccessful activities—including some that had been “deadly” for participants—in order to come up with better tactics for achieving their goals.In its first years, MST focused its activities in Brazil’s South, where, as mentioned above, conditions for mobilization were relatively more favorable, but quickly expanded to the rest of the country, establishing a national presence by the mid-1990s. To adequately develop this strategy of expansion at the national level, the movement decided early on to centralize its leadership, placing its main office in São Paulo. Soon, MST’s leaders became closer to key political actors from rising worker unions, political parties, and top-level public universities—nurturing partnerships that in time strengthened the movement’s leverage and visibility (Stedile, 1999, p. 9). MST also maintained its strong ties with the Catholic Church, while crafting its own path as an independent organization that had already gathered tens of thousands of active participants. In fact, MST’s fierce defense of its autonomy as grassroots movement, despite often leading to friction with other leftist groups, was pivotal for MST’s consolidation as a unique voice within Brazil’s organized civil society (Ondetti, 2008, p. 14). Furthermore, MST found opportunities for advocacy and leverage at the international level already in the early 1990s, when it became a member of La Via Campesina, the largest global network of peasant movements.

  What causes does MST support and what tactics does it use to support them?

  From its beginnings, MST sought to build its social base by framing landlessness as a collective problem, rooted in long-standing social structures and state policies that had been systematically favorable to the elites. Those without land “were not simply unfortunate or incompetent individuals, but rather sem terra ["landless"], a class of people discriminated against by elites and an authoritarian state” (Ondetti, 2008, p. 76). This ideology resonated among many in Brazil’s most underprivileged classes, but MST’s decision to safeguard its identity as a distinctly peasant movement—born out of the hardships and focused in the shared goals of the “sem terra”— contributed to its permanence across time, preventing its dispersion or absorption into wider left-leaning movements.
  
  MST’s statement of goals has remained practically identical since its foundation: (i) fight for land; (ii) fight for agrarian reform; and (iii) fight for a more just and fraternal society (MST, 2015b; Stedile, 1999, p. 31). The use of the term “fight” [luta] points to the implicit belief that such objectives can only be effectively attained through grassroots mobilization activities involving some sort of confrontation or civil disobedience. Historically, this belief traces back to the perceived failure of alternative means to demand for land reform, which accumulated in the years immediately before and after MST’s consolidation. Initially, such demands were presented to authorities by means of letters, petitions or meetings, or by the organization of municipal or regional assemblies, marches and demonstrations. When these tactics did not yield expected results within reasonable periods of time, more “confrontational” options were considered (Ondetti, 2008, p. 77). By the end of the 1980s, a consensus had emerged on the use of an approach that has since been referred to as “ocupar e acampar”—essentially, to occupy land that activists have identified as suitable for agrarian reform purposes and to establish an encampment on it, in order to exert targeted pressure on authorities. Although other forms of protest, including marches, hunger strikes and vigil rounds are still organized, “occupying and camping” has since become the most visible, and doubtlessly most controversial, pressure tactic deployed by MST. Indeed, by 1989, MST had devised a remarkably short motto that mobilized followers by summarizing what it saw as its core activities: “occupy, resist and produce”.
  The concept of “suitability for agrarian reform purposes” represents a key ingredient in MST’s justification for occupying land. As noted above, Brazil’s 1946 Federal Constitution incorporated an article stipulating the “social function” of rural property and the possibility of expropriation “on account of social interest, for purposes of agrarian reform,” if such function is not met. A similar stipulation remains present in Article 184 of the current 1988 Federal Constitution. Article 186 explains that a rural property meets its social function if it complies with requirements of “rational and adequate use”, including the use of available natural resources and the preservation of the environment, in compliance with labor regulations, in ways that favor the well-being of proprietors and workers. Essentially, this legal framework defines ‘unproductive land’ as one that could be used for agricultural purposes but that for any reason, other than being dedicated to preservation of the environment, remains unproductive. Unproductive land in this sense may be expropriated and in certain circumstances redistributed, after going through a bureaucratic legal process.
  
  Concordantly, part of MST’s process for planning land occupations consists in identifying properties that potentially do not meet their “social function”: state- or privately-owned land stretches that remain de facto abandoned or unproductive. An occupation is understood as a means to push governmental agencies into carrying out the process of expropriation and redistribution stipulated by law. Of course, such occupations are, strictly speaking, illegal, and spur significant levels of controversy and resistance. Whereas activists and sympathizers call them “occupations”, critics—including landowners, conservative politicians, and most of Brazilian mass media—call them “invasions” (Santos & Carlet, 2010).
  
  The processes that lead to and that ensue after an occupation takes place will be described in detail below, because they are important to understand how a large set of assentamentos, the focus for our research, are created. For now, it is important to highlight that MST does not limit itself to the planning and execution of protest activities. MST’s salience as an organized social movement in the Brazilian context, together with the partnerships that the organization has developed across time, provide it with a number of capacities for supporting its members, including those in established assentamentos, either directly or through intermediation with governmental agencies. This can be described as MST’s unionist angle (Stedile, 1999, p. 34). In accordance with these capacities, the movement today exhibits a complex organizational structure, with specialized units dedicated to communication, international relations, human rights, gender, health, education, culture, production and youth.
   

  How is MST portrayed “from the outside”?

  There are at least two very different narratives contributing to build MST’s image from outside the movement. One largely corresponds to the portrayal in documentaries and academic research, and the other to the portrayal in mainstream media reports. Neto & Pompeia (2009) performed an analysis showing how the latter are usually framed in ways that neglect discussion of the causes motivating the occupations, thereby contributing to the diffusion of a broadly negative image of MST across large sectors of Brazilian society. Grupo Globo and Grupo Abril, two of the most popular and conservative media groups in the country, often represent the movement’s members as outlaws, thieves, vagabonds, looters, assassins, or even terrorists. [2]
   
  >>> 3.2 | Assentamentos: Rural Settlements of Brazilian Agrarian Reform
   

  ---

  [1] An example was the exhibition by Sebastião Salgado, renowned photographer who registered pictures of MST’s initial activities. Available at: http://www.landless-voices.org/.

  [2] For more information on how Brazilian mainstream media report MST activities, see Mourão (2011) and Ferreira (2012).