|
 The October, 2006, reelection of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as president of Brazil can be interpreted from various angles. For example, in his victory speech after the election, Lula indicated that the increase in the number of votes for him, as compared to the 2002 election, shows that the Brazilian people are satisfied with his accomplishments during his first term.
Others interpret that Lula's ample victory is due to the weak performance of Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB - Brazil Social Democratic Party), his political opponent in the race. However, statistics from the election indicate that 25% of the electorate voted null or abstained. This is a large number for a country in which, according to Brazilian law. it is obligatory to vote. It indicates that there are many people discontent with Lula's government in the last four years or with the performance of Congress, political parties and institutions. The votes for Lula, in this second round of elections, indicate the Brazilian people's rejection of privatizations and the dismantling of the state that was proposed by Alckmin and the PSDB. These privatizations were a part of the platform of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula's predecessor, who handed over many public works and money to private capital, primarily multinationals, in exchange for almost nothing. This neo-liberal model was not completely dismantled by Lula, especially in the area of finance. Many people before the election made public that they were voting for Lula because he was the "lesser evil". From this perspective, Lula did not receive a blank check from the population. A greater portion of the population now has a renewed spirit to demand their rights as citizens and to insist that Lula fulfill his responsibilities with the Brazilian people. If all, in fact, want "another Brazil" that is structured on the pillars of social justice, universality of rights, principally the right to a life with quality, dignity and solidarity, it is necessary that the Brazilian people accompany the speeches and actions of the president and his ministers and advisers. We cannot fall into the same trap of campaign promises that we fell into in 2002, giving a blank check to the president and demobilizing the popular movements by allowing entities to represent the popular movements as the linking force between the government and its political parties. We can already take our first action. Before the second round of presidential elections, Lula stated that, in his new term as president, he would prioritize the poorest populations and the development of the country. At the same time, diverging from this priority, Lula's advisers speak of new fiscal adjustments, a major decrease in public investments, a small increase in workers' salaries, new reforms in Social Security (raising the minimum age for retirement to 65 years for men, and 60 years for women), and budget reductions in the areas of health and education. Lula, himself, now admits the possibility of these "necessary" reductions. Since winning the election, Lula has assumed another posture, speaking of the importance of maintaining the economic policies maintained by Palocci, his former finance minister. These are policies of fiscal rigor and tightening of public investments. If this proposal for development gains support with his collaborators, it would be in opposition to other policies of the Central Bank and those defended by the president. What then is really going to happen? It is difficult to comprehend this enigma. Other important observations include Lula's desire and actions in making alliances with other political parties. We note, however, that political parties in Brazil, in their majority, are composed of political careerists, interested in maintaining their "huge privileges", especially related to impunity for crimes committed by them, as well as privileges for their interest groups involved in corruption and diversion of public funds. What then can we make of Lula's intention to solidify these alliances? On one side, this is part of our political history that needs to be changed. Lula does not have a real dialogue with social movements representing the people and those who have elected him. It is not too late to emphasize the importance that social mobilization of movements and group has in order for the structural changes to occur that Brazil so desperately needs. This has been the great hope of the people who are excluded and marginalized. Social movements urgently need to assume their autonomy that has been lost when the Workers' Party and Lula assumed the direction of the country. Without this autonomy and its rigorous independence in relation to public powers, the movements and popular institutions will become deadened by unscrupulous politicians and capital. This article appeared originally at Correio da Cidadania. Waldemar Rossi is the Coordinator of the Workers' Pastoral in São Paulo.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Others no need to read any further, just join in the bashing. Cheers !