The first four months of any new president will give some indication of the degree of continuity and change in relation to his or her predecessor. The experience of Brazil in 2011 was always going to be a notable test of the balance-sheet of the two elements, in that the inauguration of Dilma Rousseff on January 1st embodied both.
The very fact that she is Brazil’s first woman to become head of state means that she symbolizes change in her very person; yet the fact that she had been the trusted ally and favored successor of the popular figure who held the office from 2003-10, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, means that she also represents a degree of continuity.
But here is a surprise, for the new president in this early period of her four-year term has seemed to transcend both these categories and to begin to establish a distinct political persona. This has been a gradual process. A single event that took place just before she passed the symbolic 100-day period in office in the second week of April conveys something of it.
The event was a shotgun massacre at a school in Realengo, a modest neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro, in which ten girls and two boys (all 13-15 years old) were killed and twelve more wounded, some seriously. The perpetrator was a 23-year-old former pupil called Wellington Menezes de Oliveira who had entered the school armed with two guns filled with more than thirty bullets.
Brazil is a country used to episodes of armed violence, often related to urban-gang wars, but this targeting of children was unique and especially shocking. Dilma Rousseff expressed the nation’s grief on the same day, 7 April, when delivering a scheduled speech to business leaders – by shedding tears. She also announced three days of official mourning, whose end coincided with her first 100 days as the country’s president.
Her reaction to the tragedy was direct and personal. In one sense it raised an echo of her mentor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whose sincerity, simplicity, openness and spontaneity in the presidency make him the most charismatic Brazilian leader in the country since the fall of the military regime in the mid-1980s.
Yet in another her display of emotion had a very different character from the political dynamism of her predecessor, and helped mark Dilma’s distinctiveness in the Brazilian public’s mind.
Dilma differs too from Brazil’s two earlier presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994-2002) and Fernando Collor de Mello (1990-92). Of these, Cardoso is by far the more respected figure: an urbane intellectual with an international profile who oversaw the economic reforms of the Real plan which ended Brazil’s severe hyperinflation.
By contrast, Collor began his term as the first directly elected president of the “new republic” era and ended it by being impeached by Congress over major corruption scandals.
The Ingredients of Change
The substance of Dilma Rousseff’s presidency has yet to be defined, but in four ways she seems different from these recent occupants of Oscar Niemeyer’s Palácio do Planalto in Brasília.
First, a distinct quality observed by many Brazilian political analysts, is that she is very discreet. For the first time in two decades, the country has a president who does not seek the media glare or popular attention – and in particular appears to have no “self-mythologizing” ambitions.
Collor, Cardoso and Lula alike wanted to change Brazil in so radical a way that the outcome would give them a shining place in Brazilian history. Dilma is modest by comparison: suddenly, the country has a president who wakes up early, works very hard, is very demanding with her team and very serious with her duties. Brazilians have as their head of state a person who seems to embody their country’s current needs and stage of development.
Second, Dilma is not – as some had suspected she would be – a puppet of Lula. This is already notable in a shift – immediate, and necessary – in Brazil’s foreign-policy stance. At a United Nations debate in March 2011, the Brazilian delegation voted in favor of an investigation into possible human-rights abuses committed in Iran against opponents of the Islamic regime. For ten years, the country’s diplomats had abstained or voted against any inquiry.
Third, Dilma’s style in day-by-day politics is a refreshing departure. Lula’s conducted politics as if he was permanently on campaign, and was more than once criticized for confusing his role as president with that of leader of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party / PT), and permanent candidate – even when he was not actually running.
Dilma has already been saluted for her refraining from involvement in political disputes and for her cordial respect towards opponents. This was evident in her deference to Fernando Henrique Cardoso during Barack Obama’s visit to Brazil in March 2011.
Fourth, Dilma is tough and quick in responding to problems within her team and administration – again a contrast with Lula’s temporizing approach. A dispute within the culture ministry, for example, was handled by preventing one of those involved from assuming his post; and new controls on government spending were imposed, following abuses during the pre-election period.
The first four months of Dilma Rousseff’s presidency suggest that she has her own style, ideas and way of governing. In this last sense, she could be seen as representing Brazil’s new political maturity.
Arthur Ituassu is professor of international relations at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. You can read more from him at his website: www.ituassu.com.br. This article appeared originally in Open Democracy – www.opendemocracy.net.
