Brazzil

What is at stake in the second round of Brazil's presidential elections is not only if state-owned oil company Petrobras will be privatized - as Mendonça de Barros, advisor to presidential candidate Alckmin affirmed to Exame magazine - and, along with it, Banco do Brasil, Caixa Econômica Federal and Eletrobrás.

What is at stake in the second round is not only if social movements will once again be criminalized and oppressed by the federal government.

What is at stake in the second round is not only if Brazil's foreign policy will continue to prioritize alliances with Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay and Cuba, along with other countries in the global south, instead of policies of subordination to the United States.

What is at stake is not only the possible return to privatizing education.

What is at stake in the second round is not just whether cultural policy will be based on private funding.

What is at stake in the second round is not only if we will have more unstable jobs, or more or less jobs in the formal sector.

What is at stake in the second round is not only if there will be more or fewer government investments in energy, communications, roads, basic sanitation, education, health, and culture.

What is at stake in the second round is not only if we will continue to diminish Brazil's inequalities through social policies - microcredit, increasing the real buying power of the minimum wage, lowering the costs of basic needs, the family assistance program and rural electrification, among others. Or if we will return to the politics of the Liberal Front Party (PFL) and Social Democratic Party (PSDB) of former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

What is at stake in the second round is all of this, which in itself is very important and marks a huge difference between the two candidates. But most of all what is at stake is the form of Brazil's international integration and the direct consequences it will have for the country's future.

Under Lula, policies that favor Mercosur, regional integration and south-south alliances will prevail over the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Under an Alckmin government, free trade will be the priority: FTAA, signing a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the isolation of the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA), and the weakening of Mercosur, the South American Community, alliances with South Africa, India, and the Group of 20.

What is at stake in the second round is whether Brazil will subordinate its future to free trade policies or put its money on the regional integration processes. This marks a fundamental difference for the future of Latin America and Brazil.

To adopt free trade and fully open the economy to the huge international monopolies  - especially U.S. companies; to reject all internal regulation, including environmental laws, currency controls, tariffs, etc; and to condemn Brazil to permanent dominance by market policies, would mean perpetuating the same inequalities that make our country the most stratified in the world.

What is at stake in the second round, then, is if we will have an unequal country or a more unequal one; if we will have a sovereign nation or a subordinate one; if we will have a more democratic society or a less democratic one; if we will have a country or become just a speculative market, and consolidate as a conservative country run by oligarchic elites - a mix between Daslu (a luxury clothes store) and Opus Dei.

If we will be a country, a society, a nation - democratic and sovereign - or be reduced to a stock market, a shopping mall surrounded by poverty on all sides.

Everything is at stake in the second round. Facing this situation, no one can be neutral, no one equidistant, no one can be indifferent.

Emir Sader is Brazilian, coordinator of the Laboratory of Public Policies of the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, and a monthly contributor to the IRC Americas Program. He is the author, among other books, of A Vingança da História (History's Revenge) from Boitempo Editorial. Originally published by Carta Maior.

Translated by Katie Kohlstedt.

Comments (20)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Where does the writer live
written by Bob, October 13, 2006

The last time I looked around Brazil every shopping mall is already surrounded by poverty on all sides. Unless the above write flies into a mall or his is blind he would know this. Lulu has done nothing for the poor except line the pockets of his drinking buddies. Try driving into any mall in any city in Brazil and if you are not robbed, raped or worse you are lucky. Communist government all over the world are finding out that it does not work. everyone wants more and people like Lulu make sure that his party gets the first more and what is left over goes to others. The common person is still poor.

LIke it really matters.
written by The Squid, October 13, 2006

It really doesn’t matter who you vote for; or hasn’t 500 years of history helped that sink in yet?

Sunday night’s debate had both candidates blaming each other and each other’s parties for the horrible and vile state this country is in. Neither proposed solutions, both just played that age old Brazilian game of “não foi eu”.

No good will come from this country this century. Vote Lula, Vote Geraldo, it doesn´t matter, Brazil will remain Brazil.

...
written by Michael, October 13, 2006

Brincadeira...You must be kidding...Brazil is already run by oligarchic elites. No philanthropy, no distribution of revenue, as the other post said, Brazil already is one big "shopping" surrounded by favelas. And please, spare us with the "evil" US corporation rhetoric. Have you stopped to look at the Trade surplus Brazil has with the U.S.? The last time I looked Brazil is one of the most protectionist countries in the world when it comes to manufactured goods in spite of the hundreds of thousands of jobs foreign firms create for Brazilians.

Brazil must resolve one fundamental problem: CORRUPTION.

Some of the worst PT propaganda I have seen
written by John Miller, October 13, 2006

What is at stake is more corruption.
What is at stake is creating a welfare state, where people become even more dependent upon government hand outs.
What is at stake is creating a country where people can get an education, where the leaders of the country hold education in high regard.
What is at stake is a lot more than the rambling PT propoganda shown above.

Stay the Course....
written by AHM, October 13, 2006

That's right, stay the course... I am voting for Lula!

Brasil must rethink its past strategy by no longer depending on its relation with Washington which in the past, has yield unjust trade Relations and intangible results. As to the inconsequential opinions of idiotic americans.... GET LOST!

Sincerely,

AHM

to AHM !
written by thereality, October 13, 2006

Unjust Trade Relations ??????
What does that means ?

WHEN HAD BRAZIL A TRADE DEFICIT WITH THE USA OR THE EU AND NOT A H U G E
TRADE SURPLUS ???

Please name the year(s) when this occured !

to the author of the article !
written by thereality, October 13, 2006

Diverting the attention of who is responsible of the messy situation that Brazil was/is and will be......is OK for me !
But no one except the politicians YOU Brazilians elected are the ones who chose
the policies of the past/present/future OF YOUR COUNTRY..

And if you believe that Lula should be rewarded with a second mandate due to his economic prowess during his first mandate :
- The Lowest Economic Growth Rate of ALL developing nations, HARDLY ABOVE 3 % during his 4 years. This performance was beaten even by 3rd world countries...except Haîti !
- After having one of your lowest interest rate, Brazil still has the World Highest Interest Rate After Inflation.
- The Reais 8 billions budget for Bolsa Familia represents less than 2 % of the 455 billions 2006 Federal Budget for the 23 % of the poorest population.
- Individuals can borrow money at an average of 55 %......OR 51 % ABOVE THE TODAY INFLATION RATE.
- Overdrafts interests rates are charged AT THE ASTOUNDING RATE OF 145 %
- Brazil is the most violent country on this planet.
- Lula increased the overall tax rate to 39 %, the same rate as in Sweden or the UK, but doesnt provide 1/10 ot the social protection, education, low cost housing, and infrastructure these countries offer !

If you enjoy this situation.......NO doubt.....Lula MUST BE RE-ELECTED !!!!!!!

But stupid question.....what did Lula with ALL that money ? Laugh

And please dont come back in a few years time.....to beg for more IMF money and criticize that your new failures will be because of America and the EU !!!!

You are against neoliberalism and globalization for your imports.....but the most adamant when it concerns your exports !!!!!!!

The only thing you can export to the developed countries is basic commodities without added value. The medium goods with some added value are produced more cheaply in Asia than in Brazil. And the goods with the highest technology are produced by us....FOR US.....since you dont want to pay a fair price for the R&D and investments that were necessary. You will get that technology years later....when we will have another better technology.
Therefore....by definition....Brazil will never ever be a developed country...but only a perpetual developing country.


Simple common sense should show you that Brazil NOT ONLY DONT fill the gap against developed countries, BUT WORSE......YOU ARE lOSING against ALL other developing countries in view of their far higher economic growth rate than yours !

Either Lula is too stupid to understanf this....or may be he understands but that is not what he wants you to swallow !!!!!!!!!


Either Lula or his voters are STUPID ! You have the choice !


Laugh....laugh....laugh !

...
written by a guest, October 14, 2006

AHM ! you probably find bolsa-esmola great social policy, right?

The only solution is sustentable and environment-friendly economic growth! dork

Alckmin says he will not nationalize Petrobras
written by Ted Goertzel, October 14, 2006

Emir Sader's faith in economic nationalism is a bit quaint in today's world, and has nothing to do with the policies of the Lula government. The Lula government has privatized two banks in its first term, and would be just as likely to privatize further industries as an Alckmin government, although Lula is not above using privatization as a rhetorical issue. The main differences between Alckmin and Lula is that Alckmin is more honest both in the sense of saying what he will actually do and in the sense of operating within the law. Alckmin has said quite explicitly that he will not "privatize" Petrobras, although that company functions independently and would not be much different if "privatized".

Inconsequential americans...
written by AHM, October 14, 2006

PLEASE:

The only solution is "sustentable" and environment-friendly economic growth! dork

Run a spell checker before exposing your IQ, in your case it stands for "Ignorance Quotient." You know, it has been said before that a BIG mouth and a NARROW mind are correlated. SHUT YOUR MOUTH & OPEN YOUR MIND.... american dork!

Good day,

AHM

to AHM
written by a guest, October 14, 2006

I'm Brazilian. Unsustainable is what the next Lula's government is going to be (and everything else) if he won't concentrate on resolving macroeconomic problems that his government has already created.

Just tell me how are Lula and PT going to past "Washington" dependency with this great economic, cultural and social growth. And Brazilian diplomacy, meaning (if you don't understad what I mean), brazilian foreign policy, is since the new democracy, independent. Lulistas use good aspects created along the years to claim its PT's achievement and all good results of many economic areas as a result of PT's government hard work. Remember, Lula has barely toil in his life. Let me correct myself, he and PT party worked really hard to block every good propose of PSDB's in FHC government when in the opposition. They are unreliable even in the opposition!

Lulistas seem to live in the best of all worlds. I still think you are a dork. get lost!

Faithfully

Do you want to be more like the US or Canada?
written by michael, October 15, 2006

The Lula naysayers are missing some important facts:

- proverty has been reduced during the Lula administration
- believe it or not, crime has actually been reduced as well
- while economic growth has been below of other developing nations, the economy and overall fiscal health of Brazil is steadily improving
- the divide between rich and poor has decreased.

As for free trade with the US, before you say anything you need to do your research on the effect on countries that have already entered free trade agreements with the US. Do you think the US wants the free trade agreements because it is a caring nation and wants mutual benefits? It wants free trade because free trade always benefits the most powerful country, namely, the US. To understand how this would affect Brazil you need to see the documentary 'Life and Debt' about how free trade destroyed the country of Jamaica and most other Central American countries.

As for people making comments about the current problems of Brazil and how Lula's government is corrupt, you are missing the point. Nobody here is saying the country is in good shape, but you have to look at before and after Lula has entered office. I want to see you post some real facts of how Brazil is worse off now than four years ago because I believe the country is on the right track.

The country cannot be completely turned around in four years time. The current policies for regional trade as well as trade with other developing nations is the right path. Brazil is weaning itself from dependency on the IMF which is extremely important. Reducing poverty is absolutely critical for the overall health of the country and progress has been made in this area. Education will be the next most important steps for the government. You must ask yourself who will do a better job at this? A man who favours social programs or one who favours business?

Communism doesn't work but neither does Corporationsim...this is the path the US is on. The divide between rich and poor is continuing to widen in the US as the middle class shrinks into McJobs.

10 and even five years ago, when Canada was consistently being ranked as the best country in the world in which to live, it was because of the balance of capitalism and socialism. I believe this is the general policy the Lula goverment is striving towards. Unfortunately for my homeland, we have become more and more Americanized and have continued to slide down the list of best countries.

So ask yourself, do you want to be the US of the near future or the Canada of the golden years? Then vote.

Lula's motto: Never in this country a government made so much for a country
written by a guest, October 15, 2006

Corruption is worst in this government at Federal level than no other before. Manipulation lies and criminal tactics at this level are at a level of nonsense and absurdity too. The Congress internal investigations were constantly and blatantly aborted, boycotted, obstructed by members of the government and even the Justice Ministry. This was the case of all scandals of this government, of a party which was self-proclaimed the only party of ethics. At the second year of Lula’s mandate, scandals were popping. PT’s RJ deputy, Benedita da Silva, traveled to Argentina attending a religious event at the expense of the government, then giving the excuse she went representing Brazil’s govern! A close government assistant of Minister Zé Dirceu, the one exiled and trained in guerilla tactics in Cuba, was involved, and even suspected of being the chief of the fraudulent gang, in serious fraud with the national public lottery company. This and another scandal at the same year, with other government assistant in 2004, were not allowed to be investigated by the parliamentary commission of investigation by the government. The only commissions allowed happened last year with the cause of Mensalão and only because of intense public opinion pression which helped the deputies from the opposition to be successful on opening the commissions. They did not happen because the government allows the police and justice do their work. Mensalão commission just happened because one of the government allies denounced the scheme. When at it, tactics were used to lower attention, lower the gravity of the scandals and no accused was found guilty, politics of the parties involved in the mensalão integrated the commission and there was no condemnation, not for lack of proof. That all makes people very fed up with this government. Also PT’s has silenced another investigation related to the assassinations of two members of the party, former mayors of Santo André and Campinas, because they threaten disclose frauds they were obliged to accept in order to get funds to the PT.

Pt’s members, students, common people say, in off, this is an old practice of PT’s party, to obtain funds to the party through fees of its political members, being them deputies, mayors, senators. My sister-in-law left the party as a common supporter when she found out.

It is a blatant lie say psdb government will agree with an ALCA on bad terms for the Brazilian economy. Brazil a long time yells that this trade must be advantageous to us, fhc’s government never seemed interested since it came to negotiation, 1995, and have an experience similar to Mexico, or other countries that only sell cheap work.

Bolsa-família was created by the psdb government. The project Fome Zero (Hunger Zero) sunk due to frauds in its system. By the way, great government propaganda since 2003, when it began.

Lula makes its propaganda among Mercosul, just like Fome Zero. If they, PT, want so much this country changes why do not start altering the corruption that is the major problem of Brazil? Very well-intentioned they are.

They hadn’t a project of govern now and they still don’t have one.
For people find themselves so divided they must have good reasons, don’t you think?

It is immoral and demagogic what this government says and does. BTW, different things both
written by a guest, October 15, 2006

I can’t be asked to trust in a government that manipulates poor people and even well intentioned people with lies. How I can trust they will not join at any cost a free trade, that they are truly working towards an honest, federal corruption free, environment-friendly government? Can I be asked to trust them to take care of education when they do open a “Federal University”, Universidade do ABC, which buildings are still being constructed meanwhile students are enrolled in a rush to start class this semester, 2006, in a rented building where no labs or one library is available? They doubled, from 6 millions families to nearly 12 million families assisted with Bolsa Famíla only in January this year. PT released half of its government budget for quick constructions just this year, election year. They did no public bidding to construct federal roads and these contracts are under suspect of fraud, roads that were poorly recovered and that cost 4 billions reais. Fraud again!


Students of USP are fed up with Lula’s project of privatizing public universities. They are supporting blank vote, for incredible that it is.

Unstable jobs come with globalization, people crazily consume technology, so all economies go to the direction of being quicker and cheaper.

I think the real social policy would be cut corruption, cut costly federal expenses and waste in the public system. There is no transparency over the government expenses, it is completely blocked to the public awareness. If, at least, the president conceded interviews with journalists, but he does not speak to them at least during he is in the government. Meanwhile taxes grew bigger. Argentina cut 34% of its inequality last year due to growth, is what it says newspapers today.

The subordination of Brazil to International Institutions as IMF and Bird is not a problem created by the former government the country’s debts are much older than that. What is really necessary is that this Lula government has a RESPONSIBLE strategy but they do not have.

After privatization, in this government the federal public machine has grown to the level prior to the privatizations, say a study of the private Mackenzie University. You can find other real negative facts about this current government if you read carefully to the other posts and articles here.

RE: Do you want to be more like the US or Canada
written by e harmony, October 15, 2006

Do you want to be more like the US or Canada?
written by michael, 2006-10-15 02:04:40

The Lula naysayers are missing some important facts:

- proverty has been reduced during the Lula administration
- believe it or not, crime has actually been reduced as well
- while economic growth has been below of other developing nations, the economy and overall fiscal health of Brazil is steadily improving
- the divide between rich and poor has decreased.

As for free trade with the US, before you say anything you need to do your research on the effect on countries that have already entered free trade agreements with the US. Do you think the US wants the free trade agreements because it is a caring nation and wants mutual benefits? It wants free trade because free trade always benefits the most powerful country, namely, the US. To understand how this would affect Brazil you need to see the documentary 'Life and Debt' about how free trade destroyed the country of Jamaica and most other Central American countries...

Communism doesn't work but neither does Corporationsim...this is the path the US is on. The divide between rich and poor is continuing to widen in the US as the middle class shrinks into McJobs.


Interesting things you say, Michael, because I was just learning in my History of Capitalism and Labor class about the morally bliss agrarian society Thomas Jefferson envision the United States as and to become, and that of the bustling industrial urban society Alexander Hamilton wanted the United States to become. In 1828 I believe, under Hamilton's influence, the United States inacted protective tarriffs. Primarily to protect the U.S. from the greater industrial giant of Great Britan.

From my perspective had Thomas Jefferson's vision won out over Alexander Hamilton's the United States would look very similar to Latin America today. Keeping in mind: that Jefferson supported republicanism which was the rule of all by an educated elite - similar to himself as a "gentleman planter" who had liesure time to study, ponder, and contemplate while his Black slaves toiled on his plantation fields. Latin America failed to industrialize like the United States or Europe and to my knowledge placed more emphasis on morals, agarian life, and rule by educated elites. Though Latin America has had some brutal dictatorships (and some perhaps benevolent I don't know) I doubt more than ever that the U.S. rise as a superpower was due to "morals" and Latin Americas lesser rise due to "lack of morals." Economy in all her nuances and manifestations shapes the growth of a society more than "morals" I believe.

So basicly I agree with your opinion.

One more thing: in my sociology book (authored by John J. Macionis) he speaks about what sociologist term the "McDonaldization" of the United States and increasingly the world. By that he means in terms of low paying service jobs and the carbon copy society the United States and other nations are becoming.

...
written by karen, October 15, 2006

People decide in different manners some are more rational others tend to be instinctive and others are emotional. When there is lots of pression coming from many sides people may tend to decide with emotions. at this moment if they have available effective help they will listen to their spouses, trusted friends family and even professional help. When things depend on others not only on yourself one can have little control on how things are going to be in his/her life it doesn't matter how hard one tries.

Nothing will really change
written by Paul B., October 16, 2006

As an estadunidense, one thing I've learned about presidential elections, is that they mean virtually nothing.

Elections are not determined by voters, but by election "spinners" that are funded by the rich (in any country). Elections are rigged either legally or illegally and the one with the most corruption behind them will always win.

Elected officials are jokes, they have no real power. Not to sound like a conspiracy theory, but in reality, all "laws" are decided behind closed doors by powerful people who laugh at the idea of being elected.

Vote! Especially if you have to, like in Brazil. At least in the USA we don't HAVE to vote... why bother? You'll only elect Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum.

Best to ignore politics and make your own life, and that of those you love, better. Stop wasting your time with worrying about Politics, it's all "merda" anyway.

Good point
written by michael, October 17, 2006

While sometimes I feel compelled to participate in these discussions, I have to partially agree with the above poster's final sentence.

However, different governments ( however they are elected) do affect the outcome of the country and even if one has more backing, both financially and propaganda wise, the voters will still decide if they are educated. That is why the voter must ignore the propaganda and know the candidates policies. Because while Paul B is correct in saying there are people with money behind the scenes deciding the platforms/laws of these candidates, the policies do vary from party to party and leader to leader.

Most people here seem to be stuck on the corruption issues which I understand. However, I don't believe this is related to a particular party, but more the state of Brazilian politics. And lets not forget, governments in such 'first world' countries such as the US and Canada have both recently had major corruption scandals of their own. I assume most people here know that Dick Cheney's former company was awarded almost all of the contracts in recontructing Iraq. And lets not forget about the control of oil factor involved for the Bush family.

I believe, as do many others, this is the main reason the Bush government manifactured false intelligence indication Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to invade this country which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians as well as American soldiers. However, since the average American gets their news from Fox or CNN they will never be exposed to these possibilies.

To me that is corruption on a much larger scale, involving the deaths of hunderds of thousands of innocent people for financial gain and control of oil.

So while I would never suggest that corruption be taken lightly, if it is a fact of life in Brazilian politics right now, I would still urge people to vote based on policies. Brazil is at a crucial point in its development and the right policies must be implemented.

re: e harmony
written by michael, October 17, 2006

I completely agree with your assesment of why Latin America is where it is today...it failed to industrialize when the US did and continued to remain an exporter of raw goods completely dependent on the world market prices.

In my reading, Brazil was actually the leader in industrialization in South America and did so agressively and rapidly ( I believe in the 50s and 60s), causing serious growing pains in the beginning but which has set itself up to be a leader in the future. Of course it has been poised for this for many years but for a variety of reasons ( including huge financial debt) has not been able to execute this very successfully.

I know many Brazilians have given up on their politicians and hopes for their country, but I believe there is reason for optimism.

welcoming facts
written by michael, October 17, 2006

After reading some of the posts following my original, I realized there are others here are know more details of the current government's failed policies, corruption scandals, etc.

I can't claim to know the all the details of the current government as I have only been following the politics here for a year or so. I only listed the facts that I am aware of as reported from international news sources. As I can't vote here anyway, its basically irrelevant what I think anyway. I am really only expressing my opinion on what 'type' of governments and policies I believe are more successful.

I would be interested in knowing in detail why some of the posters think Alckmin and his party would be better. Examples of his policies, why he would be 'less' corrupt, etc.

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment