A closer look

By Aleksander Aguilar e Fernando Duarte

On the verge of winning a second term, Lula will face tough challenges in the next four years

Judging by recent opinion polls, it would seem that only a political disaster could keep Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from being re-elected president of Brasil on the 1st October. And not just because more people are satisfied than dissatisfied. Unlike in 2002, the former metalworker, who went on to head one of the world’s largest democracies, getting 52.4 million votes, a record in the history of the Brasilian electoral process, is no longer as popular as he was, at home or abroad. Since his triumphant march up the ramp of the Presidential Palace in January 2003, Lula’s party, the PT (who won power by promising an alternative to Brasilian political corruption) has been wallowing in the mud of a scandal that has sullied Lula’s cabinet.

Lula’s own credibility has also been effected, but not enough to make Brasilians feel the need to make a change. Academics and political commentators have blamed this on apathy amongst the electorate, but the fact is that people still believe that the Lula administration is getting more things right than wrong (some surveys have shown that five out of ten Brasilians would classify Lula’s performance as good or very good).

Others blame this on the lack of alternatives amongst the opposition - the ex-governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, is held as an illustrious stranger from the South East, and senator Heloisa Helena is touted as a ”a possibility for 2010”, despite her heroic campaign.

“Class polarization will characterize this election, which will end up being between Lula and Alckmin. And Lula will probably win. His administration has been insufficient, not bad”, confirms Bruno Maranhão, leader of the Movement for the Liberation of Landless Rural Peasants (MLST), better known for having led a protest at the beginning of June that ended up trashing Congress.

Without trying to influence anyone, Jungle has decided to weigh up the pros and cons of Lula’s first term in office, in the hope that, if he’s re-elected, he’ll try and shake things up a little more.



Modest economic growth

According to several international financial institutions, the last two years were some of the best for economic growth world-wide. Except in Brasil that is, where the economy only grew by 2.3% in 2005. Even 2004’s rate of 4.9% was little in comparison to that of other developing countries, including neighbouring Latin American countries such as Argentina. And then there’s China and India, the big boys on the block who Brasil is supposedly meant to compete with to head the new world order of the 21st Century. And it’s all the fault of over-cautious policies that have kept interest rates high and valued the Real above the dollar, which isn’t a very tempting prospect for investors.

The government’s cautious stance is justified by the need to combat inflation, which has been tamed after having hit the 20% mark the year Lula came to power. But one of the major criticisms of the government’s economic policies has to do with their dependency on the exportation of agricultural products such as soya, which can be risky in the long run, according to specialists like Roberto Leher, a social scientist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). “Today, Brasil is even more dependent on global economic dynamics, which makes the country very vulnerable. The agricultural industry is dangerous because there’s no production chain. Soya, for example, creates very few jobs and provokes terrible environmental damage”, explains Leher, creating an allusion to the role played by soya in the destructionof the Amazon.

His colleague, Reinaldo Gonçalves, goes even further: the emphasis on the exportation of primary goods has increased the influence of foreign capital on the Brasilian economy. According to his research, 47.5% of every 100 reais produced by Brasil’s economy under the Lula administration is dependent on external markets, which is three times higher than during the administration of the previous president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. At least exportation increases the country’s reserves.

The government may well take pride in having generated 4.5 million new jobs and elevated the minimum wage to R$300. Then there’s the Bolsa Familia (family welfare) programme, which gives financial aid to 11 million Brasilian families, almost a quarter of the population, even though the grandious figures invested in the scheme (R$6 billion) whittle down to around R$15 - R$95 per person. Families receive money in exchange for keeping their children vaccinated and in school. “An enormous number of needy families in Brasil will vote for Lula out of the fear that another candidate will take away the programme. But in reality, whilst they’re stepping out of abject poverty, their living conditions are still atrocious”.

There has also been a drop in unemployment, the biggest in the last 11 years, reaching the 8.3% mark in December 2005. And the average Brasilian income has reached a record level of R$995.40.

Less inequality

Many people have criticised Lula’s social programmes, but the fact is that research carried out by the Brasilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) published at the end of 2005, has confirmed that the government is actively reducing inequality in Brasil. Poverty rates dropped by 8% between 2003 and 2004, and on the educational front, the government’s performance has been impressive: the percentage of school dropouts between the ages of 5 and 17 has dropped from 29% to 18%, whilst the distribution of 112 thousand scholarly grants for university students in 2005 was the largest in the history of Brasilian education.

The health sector has also registered progress, like the reduction in the born babies death number - now it´s only 26 per thousand. And despite all the noise made by NGOs about slave labour in the Amazon, the Lula administration has liberated 12,400 people over the past three years, which is more than Fernando Henrique Cardoso acheived during his eight years as president.



A roar abroad, a meow at home

Brasilians can take pride in the fact that the government has taken on richer nations and fought for fair trade and greater political participation by developing countries. Brasil took a firm stand against agricultural subsidies and market barriers whilst applying for a permenent seat on the UN Security Council. At the beginning of 2006, Lula was welcomed with due pomp and circumstance by Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair during a rare state visit by a Brasilian president.

But back at home, the past few years have been turbulent: Lula has been caught up in a political quagmire since 2003, when divergences within the PT itself led to the expulsion of charismatic figureheads such as Senator Heloisa Helena. The worst moment was the so-called “mensalão scandal”, when the government was accused of having bribed deputies to vote for projects it deemed important. The accusations were entwined with a series of parallel scandals that involved several of the presidents closest allies, including ministers José Dirceu and Antonio Palocci.

The mensalão effect may well be felt on the 1st, when people are expecting a decrese in the number of PT representatives with a seat in Congress. This may well oblige Lula to form new coalitions to maintain his majority, which is always tricky business, taking into account the complex machinations of Brasilian politics. However, these dangerous liaisons are not exclusive to the PT: a recent study carried out by the NGO Transparency International revealed that almost 40% of all of the 496 candidates for the Federal Chamber of Deputies (the brasilian equivalent of the House of Commons) are embroiled in some form of judicial process or another.

Of course, not everyone would agree with the above analysis, and that’s perhaps why democracy is so fascinating. What’s for sure is that, despite all the political turmoil, Lula is still seen by the majority of Brasilians as the lesser of two evils, and someone deserving a second chance. The ex-worker has another four years to live up to these expectations.

There are lots of challenges ahead: Lula’s campaign promises include better education, lower interest rates and more investment in the country, but he has yet to explain how this will be done. There’s the eternal challenge of the Pension Reform programme, which aims to put an end to the waste of precious resources which could be better spent on public institutions and individuals who depend on their meagre pensions to scrape a living.

Diminished social inequality doesn’t necessarily mean much in a country where only 5 thousand families retain 40% of the national GDP. Lula also won’t be able to avoid the issue of land reform, which has always been promised by former administrations but never treated seriously - and according to some, Lula’s government has actually encouraged the unequal appropriation of land. The preservation of the Rainforest, after a mandate in which the highest ever levels of deforestation were recorded, will also be another challenge that could well determine the legacy left by Lula. Unlike during the mensalão scandal, when Lula claimed he was unaware of what had been going on around him, the president had better be very aware of the vote of confidence (or resignation) that the Brasilian public seem prepared to give him.



Phrases

“I continue to vote for Lula. I believe that, despite the problems faced by the economy, he’s still the most likely candidate to invest in social policies. But he’s going to end up owing us all a lot. He already does.”
Chico buarque, musician

“I hoped that he’d govern within the limits of the law and then at the end of his term hand over the baton to another president.”
Caetano veloso, musician

“I’m disappointed, but I still don’t think that voting in a neo-liberal government is the best solution.“
Leticia sabatella, actress

“We live in a hypocritical country. Everyone is used to bending the rules. Each nation has the politicians it deserves.”
Maria Paula, presenter

“The political world is swampy terrain; ethics are a matter of convenience. If the end is a noble one, then it justifies the means.”
Luiz Carlos Barreto - film-maker

“If Brasilians knew how to vote, Lula wouldn’t be topping the polls.”
Pele, footballer



‘Tasteless vegetable’ bets on his experience By Felipe Elias

Alckmin, the president’s main rival, lacks political charisma

An admirer of Juscelino Kubitschek, one of Brazil’s most charismatic presidents, Geraldo Alckmin, 54 years of age, will be disputing the presidency of Brasil in the same way that he has behaved throughout his political career: determinedly and hopefully, though discretely and without any fanfare, typical traits of the man who was born and raised in Pindamonhangaba, in the hinterlands of Sao Paulo state. Governor of São Paulo, the largest state in Brasil, Alckmin represents the antithesis of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the man to be beaten during the upcoming elections. Unlike Lula, who made his way from the streets to the presidential palace on the back of his charisma, the PSDB candidate doesn’t have anywhere near the same kind of popular support. His career has been based on a series of elected posts, starting with a seat on the Legislative Assembly of his home town when he was 19 years old.

His discretion and serenity haven’t always been well accepted. Alckmin was recently called a “tasteless vegetable on a stick” by his critics, due to his alleged lack of appeal. In reality, the governor wasn’t even in the running to take on Lula until shortly before the PSDB chose their official candidate; more well-known figures such as ex-Health Minister José Serra and the Governor of Minas Gerais, Aécio Neves, looked more likely adversaries.

People have even suggested that the choice of Alckmin as candidate was a calculated manouvre: the PSDB are simply biding their time and waiting for Lula and the PT to run out of steam over the next four years and make things easier for Aécio in 2010. These rumours, alongside Alckmin’s reputation for playing safe politically and the scant support he has received from the party he helped found have in no way discouraged him, and he promises that he’ll bring in the votes.

His main strength seems to be his knack for winning elections: after starting out as a councillor, he became mayor of Pindamonhangaba in 1971. Eleven years later, as a member of the PMDB, he gained a seat at the São Paulo Chamber of Deputies, and from there made his way to Brasília, where he was a federal deputy for two consecutive mandates. Returning to São Paulo, he was one of Mário Covas’ right hand men. Covas was one of the main leaders of the party, and together they won the 1998 state elections. After Covas’ death in 2001, Alckmin took over as governor, a position he was re-elected to in 2002.

Another big difference between Alckmin and his main rival is his lack of grass roots political experience. Whilst Lula made his name by participating in the trades union movement during the `70s and early `80s, Alckmin was never particularly socially engaged and didn’t even actively participate in the student movement during his time at university – he studied medicine at the University of Taubaté.

Faced with a rather unfavourable starting position, the opposition candidate began his television campaign just as many had expected: he didn’t directly criticize Lula, preferring to emphasize his reputation and political career to win over the public with a view to a possible but ever more unlikely second round. It remains to be seen whether or not Alckmin can spice things up a bit; if not it will be hard to pry the reigns of power from Lula’s hands.

“Lula in power will be a little less worse”

By Aleksander Aguilar

For analyst, current president is the best solution for country and continent

The London School of Economics (LSE) is renowned worldwide in the field of politics and economics. In all, 13 students and teachers from the university have won the Nobel Prize. LSE political scientist Francisco Painizza, spoke to Jungle about the upcoming Brasilian elections and the good reception that Lula would receive from abroad if he was to be re-elected.

JD - In relation to the Brasilian political situation during Lula’s reign, you have previously stated that Lula has become a Latin American public representative for the ´third way`. Was this what really happened?

FP - In one way, I would say yes, The ´third way` as an attempt to run the market economy whilst also taking into account social policies. This is how Lula has done it, balancing the economy with the implementation of social programs, such as the Bolsa Familia initiative. But today they are not talking about the ´third way`. Today it’s all about social-democratization and the ´popular` way. Lula, Michelle Bachelet (Chile), and Tabare Vazquez (Uruguay) are united in their socio-democratic ideas, whilst Kischner (Argentina), Chávez (Venezuela) and Evo Morales (Bolivia) align themselves with the populist idea.


JD - Lula’s first election success was a huge spectacle in international politics and great things were expected of his government. How would you view the following elections?

FP - Lula won the last election because he was different. What has happened now is that the opposition cannot seem to present themselves as any different to the present government. Alckimin can’t seem to find an argument as to why people should vote him. However, in reality the government is saying that though it may not be that different to the opposition, it is still better. The economy has grown more than in the FHC era and the poorest sectors of the population have benefited from social programs. We may not be out of the water but we`re a little bit less deep in it at least!


JD - How would the European Union react, then, to a possible Lula victory? Are they willing him to win?

FP - There is a common belief that Lula is a strong candidate and his victory would be welcomed for two reasons. Lula is one of the most important representatives of the moderate left in Latin America, and the fact that he is moderate, is very important. Secondly, Lula’s government plays a big part in international relations - for example, in the World Trade Organization. The EU and the United States should hedge their bets on Lula.



Who said image is nothing?

By Lilian Benjamin

Political marketing get as much attention as election manifestos

Many people were left scratching their heads after seeing President Luís Ignácio Lula da Silva during a recent party political broadcast on TV. The president seemed rejuvenated. Although his team have denied it, many people swore that Lula’s forehead seemed less lined than usual, perhaps due to botox injections. Whether this is true or not, the fact is that the work that has gone into his image is all part and parcel of electoral marketing, which has become as important as campaign promises. But how could all this influence your vote?

To a certain extent, political candidates have always had to sell themselves. Today, however, due to the fact that the media is all prevailing and there are therefore more chances of reaching the electorate, politicians tend to employ teams of PR agents. Then there’s the ever increasing competition and a certain public disregard that politicians have to contend with, as well as rising disenchantment, as recent studies have shown.

One of the most famous cases of a political makeover was the one carried out by PR agent Duda Mendonça, who for “just” R$25 million took on the task of getting Lula elected in 2002, at a time when the then PT candidate had been defeated during the previous three presidential elections. Duda changed everything from the President’s speech to his suit, and even recommended that he gave his beard a good trim.

During the present campaign, which is being masterminded by João Santana, the president has made deeper changes than his rumoured botox injections. He has taken care to distance himself as much as possible from the PT, a party involved in a series of corruption charges. Not only that, the traditional red that symbolizes the party has given way to blue on the scenery used in Lula’s television appearances. According to specialists, red conjures up images of the Left for voters.

A wide smile, a confident gaze and a youthful appearance are all powerful weapons. José Serra’s popularity rocketed in 2004 when he covered up the bags under his eyes, started to smile and won over the public’s vote, getting elected mayor of São Paulo.

There are even more extreme cases, like former French president François Mitterrand, who had his teeth done because a marketing advisor said that he had a “vampiric air” about him. Then there was Paulo Maluf, who had corrective eye surgery in order to make more direct eye-contact with the electorate.

It would seem that it’s up to the public to tell the difference between what’s superficial and what’s real and to see beyond this mask of publicity. As the saying goes, appearances can be deceiving.

No leaps of faith

By Paula Góes

Study reveals that Brasilians are each day more jaded with politics

There’s a popular saying in Brasil that there has yet to be born any politician worth his salt. This belief has been confirmed once again by a recent study carried out by the Institute of Political Sciences (IPOL) of the University of Brasilia (UnB). The figures are startling: 87.4% of the electorate simply don’t trust politicians. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate are held in scorn by 80.3% and 70% of the population respectively. What’s more, according to 30% of voters, there’s no such thing as democracy in Brasil.

Curiously, the same research reveals another inverse, yet typically Brasilian, characteristic: optimism. No less than eight out of ten interviewees believed that corruption was an evil that could be stamped out. “I don’t know where these voters get their optimism from. I have to confess that I lost mine long ago”, says political scientist Ricardo Caldas, coordinator of the Centre for Scientific and Technological Policy at the university. “If one takes a good look at the Brasilian political system, it soon becomes apparent that things haven’t evolved in any way. It’s a very fragile optimism”.

The professor relied on the help of graduate students studying Contemporary Political Theory and Corruption Theory. The students took to the streets from the 10th-12th June this year armed with questionnaires featuring 25 objective questions that could only be answered with a “yes” or a “no”. In all, 1,679 people from across Brasília were heard, with 1,086 saying what they thought about the Brasilian elite and 593 giving their opinion on corruption and political credibility.

Caldas, who has been specializing in this area since 2001, believes that the figures published in the study are a more realistic representation of public opinion regarding Brasilian politics, since previous works offered more options for responding to questions. “Even still, there has never been such a widespread sense of disillusionment before”, confirms the professor. Nevertheless, Caldas doesn’t believe that this disenchantment is a new phenomenon, but rather something that has been building up over a long period of time, more specifically since the late `80s, when the National Constituent Assembly, which quickly became known as the “Prostituent” Assembly, was set up.

Later events such as the impeachment of Fernando Collor and the Mensalão affair and the endemic amount of bloodsucking deputies have all served to consolidate public opinion that good, honest politicians are the stuff of legend – at least in Brasil.

The figures:

87.4% don’t trust politicians
80.3% don’t believe deputies
76.9% believe that there exists an elite within Brasil
73% say that political parties aren’t trustworthy
70% don’t trust senators
60.5% don’t believe in the government
60.5% think that the governing power has been discredited
59.5% think that corruption has increased within Brasil
58.7% don’t feel represented by any political party
48,8% believe that politicians wield the most power
30% don’t believe that Brasil is a democratic state
For 33.1%, a candidate’s honesty is the most important factor when it comes to voting, followed by their ethics (19.1%) and their experience (15%).



Vote-winning beats

Tião did not became famous just because he could throw a whole range of objects at whopever came closer to his cage in the Rio Zoo. The monkey was launched as candidate in the 1988 local elections in a mock campaign promoted by comedians from the Brasilian magazine “Casseta Popular” and, amazingly, ended up as the third most-voted candidate for the Rio Assembly. Those were the days of paper votes in Brasil and the public could use the imagination. Tião, however, was not the first animal to be an electoral hit. The pioneer role belongs to Cacareco, a rhino that received 100.000 votes in the local elections in São Paulo, 48 years ago. Had he been human, he would have claimed a place in the City Assembly and outvoted a lot of more serious competitors.



Dark horses

Lula, Alckmin and Heloísa Helena are not the only people running for president. There are other five candidates, but none of them really stand a chance of even making a hypothetical second round. The most well-know is Cristóvão Buarque, a former governor of Brasília. Unfortunately he didn’t fare very well in the most recent opinion poll: he had only 1% of votes.



Not as seccure as they seem

By Renata Mafezzoli

Ten years after the electronic voting system first appeared in Brasil, there are now increasing fears that it may not be as secure as the powers that be have made it out to be. According to some specialists, the apple of the Federal Election Division’s eye is susceptible to a considerable ammount of fraud.

One of the problems is to do with the fact that voters’ identities are registered on the same machine they use to vote. “The conection between the terminals means that there’s a chance that people’s votes can be traced”, confirms engineer Amilcar Brunazo Filho, author of the book “Fraud and How to Defend the Electronic Vote”.

According to the engineer, another problem has to do with the fact that the booths don’t print out votes after they’ve been registered, preventing recounts and eliminating the transparency of the process. José Rodrigues Filho, ex-research fellow at Harvard University and current lecturer ay the Federal University of Paraíba, agrees with Brunazo. “The biggest complaint made about electronic voting, from a technical point of view, is that it’s not an auditable system as of yet”, explains the professor.



The number

Brasilians are eligible to vote on October 1st. That number corresponds to approximately 70% of the country’s population. People will be voting not only for presidente, but also for the new members of Parliament, state governors and members of state assemblies.