Papers - Conference 2009 - Institute of Latin American Studies

due to unequal land distribution were violently repressed (MST.org.br; Wolford 2004: 411:Servelo de Medeiros 2007: 1503; Carter 2003: 7). The following 21 years of dictatorship wasa turbulent period with industrialization, mechanization of the agricultural sector, and whathas been called “the economic miracle” (Wolford 2004: 411; Meszaros 2000: 3; see alsoWelch 2006: 200). Although the economy of Brazil grew rapidly, the gains were unequallydistributed. 2 For the ones excluded from the economic progress, reality was experiencedthrough unemployment, mass movements of people, and increased urbanization (Perz 2000;Vanden 2003: 326f; Wolford 1996: 457; Plummer & Ranum 2002: 18: Servelo de Medeiros2007: 1503). 3In the early 1980s, due to external debts and inflation, the military government lost powerand gave in 1985 room for a democratic election (Wolford 2004: 411). This was also theperiod in which MST was officially established (Löwy 2001: 36f; Welch 2006: 200; Carter2003: 8ff; Servolo de Medeiros 2007: 1504; Hammond 1999: 473). MST can be seen as aresponse to longstanding economic, social and political inequalities that have been part ofBrazilian society since colonial times until present days (Vanden 2003: 326). 4 An importantdriving force for the becoming of MST was the Pastoral Land Commision, or CPT(Commissão Pastoral da Terra), that was formed by activists within the Catholic and Lutheranchurches in 1975 (Welch 2006: 202; Löwy 2001). What characterized CPT, and which can beseen within MST still today, was its criticism towards “[…] the drastic social consequences ofthe introduction of capitalism in the countryside” (Löwy 2001: 36). CPT also contributed tothe making of space and infrastructure for meetings and organizations of peasantorganizations. By doing so they brought public attention to the struggles for land. Arguingthat land was “a gift from god” (Karriem 2008: 4) and therefore a right of the landless, CPTgave “theological legitimacy” to this struggle (Servolo de Madeiros 2007: 1501). Sincelandownership in Brazil is synonymous to power and wealth, it has got a certain value asstatus symbol (see Servolo de Medeiros 2007: 1502). However, in the Brazilian constitution itis written that “[…] the use of property is subordinated to social well-being” (Ibid.). Thismeans that land which is not being used should be expropriated by the state in favor of thepeople willing to cultivate it (MSTbrazil.org; Servolo de Medeiros 2007: 1502; Hammond1999: 68). The main strategy applied by the MST to urge the government for expropriation2 In 1960 five percent of the population received 27,7 percent of the nation‟s total income. In 1990 this numberwas 35,8 percent (Wolford 2004: 421, footnote 5). For more figures, see Meszaros 2000: 3.3 In a period of 20 years Brazil went from being a country with about 75 percent of its population in rural areasto instead having 75 percent of its population in urban areas (Plummer and Ranum 2002: 18).4 In 1996 one percent of the landowners owned 45 percent of all agricultural land (MST[b] Vanden 2003: 326;Kjörling 2004: 47).2