Strange things are happening in Brazil. Long plagued by grotesque inequalities and corrupt politicians, Brazilians have always taken refuge in the carnival atmosphere and samba soccer of their beloved national football team. It’s a passion normally only matched by contempt for their political leaders. However, following a disastrous 2010 World Cup by Brazil’s standards (the team was knocked out in the quarter-finals), public anger was running so high that manager Carlos Caetano Verri, better known as Dunga, was swiftly and ruthlessly ousted. To compound this shift in national character, outgoing President Lula da Silva commands an incredible 80 per cent approval rating in most opinion polls. This far exceeds that of his government, which hovers around 60 per cent.
Lula’s popularity can be explained through his personal history, his effortless charisma and his empathy with ordinary people, especially the very poor. His story is remarkable. The seventh of eight surviving children of a poverty-stricken rural family near Recife, Pernambuco, in the north-east of the country, he had only four years of primary school education. He is a former metalworker and leader of the metalworkers’ union of Sao Bernardo do Campo. And he was one of the founders of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT – the Workers’ Party) in 1980. When he ran for the presidency, it was because he understood the problems facing millions of Brazilians.
Lula had experienced the dark side of what Brazil’s brutal military dictatorship (1964-1985) and the United States called an economic miracle: poverty pay, poor health and safety in factories, food shortages, and an environment where those who fought for a better life were arrested, tortured and often killed. Brazilian football legend, doctor and street-philosopher Socrates suggests, with typical Brazilian effervescence, that Lula’s Brazil “is the birthplace of a new civilisation based on harmony, happiness, spontaneity, creativity and freedom”, which evokes a vivid contrasts with the country Charles de Gaulle once described as “not serious”.
On October 3, more than 100 million Brazilians will vote in Brazil’s sixth presidential election since the end of the military dictatorship. The country’s constitution bars Lula from standing for a third term. There were robust debates throughout 2009 about whether this should be altered to allow Lula to run again. Although almost certain to win if he did, he resisted the temptation and ruled it out. However, Lula has campaigned vigorously in 2010 – often in breach of the electoral law – for Dilma Rousseff, his comrade-in-arms. She was an urban guerrilla during the military dictatorship. For 20 years, she was years an active member of the populist Partido Democratico Trabalhista (Democratic Labour Party). She joined the PT in 2000 and became energy minister and chief of staff for Lula. And she is vehement in her defence of his achievements.
The question that Brazil’s political pundits are asking is whether Lula’s immense popularity can be transferred to Rousseff. Lula is working hard at it, giving her full media exposure and linking her on every occasion to his government’s key strategic plans: the programme of accelerated economic growth with its massive infrastructural investment and the expenditure on social programmes. They are also playing to nationalist sentiments regarding the discovery of offshore pre-salt oil – Brazil’s “passport to the future”.
The main opposition candidate, José Serra of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), is an experienced politician with a strong personality. He made his reputation as health minister in Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s administration (1994-2002). In 2002, he stood against Lula for the presidency and lost.
Now Lula’s popularity, combined with a high-flying Brazil that has emerged largely unscathed from the financial crisis with gross domestic product up by 9 per cent last year, give Serra little room for manoeuvre. He has been reduced to promising that he will deliver more of what Lula has already been doing.
However, Serra has been vocal on issues outside the economy. He is particular critical of Lula’s foreign policy of close co-operation with other left-leaning Latin American governments. Serra is committed to turning the Mercosur charter, the regional trade agreement signed by various South American countries, into a free trade zone. Roberto Conde, Uruguay’s deputy foreign affairs minister, has said this would be a “historic mistake”.
Moreover, after the losing trend set by the right in Ecuador and El Salvador, Serra is trying to turn the Brazilian election into a referendum on the socialist presidencies of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Bolivia’s Evo Morales. Serra’s critics say he has badly misread the region’s current political landscape, where local oligarchies working in conjunction with US corporate and political interests continue to be defeated at the ballot box.
Likely to finish a distant third is Marina Silva, Lula’s former environment minister and now the candidate of the Green Party (Partido Verde). She left the Workers Party after 30 years over differences with Rousseff’s “aggressive development plans” for the Amazon. Silva is predicted to get 10 per cent of the vote, which means she would play a crucial role in any run-off, should no candidate get the 50 per cent plus one vote required to win on October 3. There are another nine candidates, but collectively they are only polling about 2 per cent.
The other key left-wing force is the powerful Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), which has reached an accommodation with the PT government that is not without its difficulties. The MST’s Joao Paulo Rodrigues describes its relationship with Lula: “He is our friend, but also a friend of our enemies.”
In 2009, the MST said: “2010 is an electoral year and we have the chance to push for political changes and agrarian reform through alliances with social movements and trade unions.” The MST recommends voting for “socialist and progressive candidates committed to agrarian reform”. It says: “Brazil has to show to the world that it is more than just the country that will hold the Olympics and World Cup. It has to be the land of social and economic justice – a country where land and wealth get distributed more equally. This is the country we want to fight for in 2010.”
The MST continues to highlight the fact that Brazil has the most unequal distribution of income in Latin America. Nevertheless, economic inequality in Brazil has been slowly diminishing under Lula, with wages rising for the poorest 25 per cent of the population.
The report Pro-Poor Growth: The Brazilian Paradox is the product of a joint project between the United Nations Development Programme and the Brazilian government. It found that the poorest half of the population has seen its per capita income rise by four times the average national increase.
The PT has also instigated a substantial low-end housing project, which aims to build 500,000 homes for people on low incomes, as well as a raft of other social policy measures designed to reduce poverty and social inequality.
Rousseff may not have the charm and political acumen of Lula, but she offers the policy continuity that polls suggest voters want. Further, few Brazilians today want to be seen as on the right and most are enthusiastic about deeper regional integration as outlined by Lula when he declared: “Venezuela and Brazil are working for the immense potential of our region and for the search for our own solution for the good of our people.”
Left-wing governments allied to social movements and trade unions have brought hope and progress to the region. Participatory and transparent governance allied to radical social democratic economic alternatives have replaced failed International Monetary Fund policies.
Serra may have made a big mistake in attacking Chávez and Morales. He cannot ignore the fact that the new Latin American internationalism has inspired millions and become a vital corrective to the United States drive for global hegemony. Dilma Rousseff pledges to sustain and extend Lula’s popular social and integrationist policies. Time will tell, but she seems to be on the right side of history.
