everything needed for enabling people to vote, on a national basis.
It was compiled by a number of liberal/progressive organizations.
This review of Brazil's election is much more comprehensive and,
in my opinion, fairer than those in the LA and NY Times. Judge for
yourself, then VOTE. -Ed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/01/brazil-republicans
Brazil wins with Dilma Rousseff
It's not the result Washington wanted, but Dilma's victory creates the
chance to consolidate Brazil's social progress under Lula.
By Mark Weiwbtot
The Guardian/UK: November 1, 2010
chance to consolidate Brazil's social progress under Lula
a.. Dilma Rousseff, who has won the election for president of Brazil,
greets supporters in the city of Porto Alegre. Photograph: Nabor Goulart/AP
Like the rally led by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central that
brought hundreds of thousands of people into the streets of Washington, DC
on Saturday, Brazil's election on Sunday was a contest of "Restore Sanity"
versus "Keep Fear Alive" - but with the fate of millions of Brazilians
seriously at stake.
Dilma Rousseff of the governing Workers' party coasted to victory against
the opposition candidate José Serra, with a comfortable margin of 56 to 44%.
It had been a bitter and ugly campaign, marked by allegations of corruption
and malfeasance on both sides, ending with Serra's wife calling Dilma a
"baby-killer."
Religious groups and leaders mobilised for the Serra campaign and accused
Dilma of wanting to legalise abortion, ban religious symbols, being
"anti-Christian", and a "terrorist" for her resistance to the military
dictatorship during the late 1960s. The whole campaign was all too
reminiscent of Republican strategies in the United States, going back to the
rise of the religious right in the 1980s, through the "Swift Boat" politics
and Karl Rove's "Weapons of Mass Distraction" of recent years.
Serra even had a rightwing foreign policy strategy that prompted one critic
to label him "Serra Palin". His campaign threatened to alienate Brazil from
most of its neighbours by accusing the Bolivian government of being
"complicit" in drug trafficking and Venezuela of "sheltering" the Farc (the
main guerrilla group) in Colombia.
He attacked outgoing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for his refusal -
along with most of the rest of South America - to recognise the government
of Honduras. The Honduran government was "elected" following a military coup
last year, under conditions of censorship and human rights abuses such that
only the United States and a handful of mostly rightwing allies recognised
it as "free and fair".
But in the end, sanity triumphed over fear, as voters proved to have been
more convinced by the substantial improvements in their well-being during
the Lula years than anything Serra had to offer.
It is perhaps not surprising that Serra, an economist, would try to find a
way to avoid the most important economic issues that affect the lives of the
majority of Brazilians. The economy has performed much better during the
Lula years than during the eight years of rule by Serra's Social Democratic
party (PSDB): per capita income grew by 23% from 2002 to 2010, as opposed to
just 3.5% for 1994 to 2002. Measured unemployment is now at a record low of
6.2%.
Perhaps even more importantly, the majority of Brazilians enjoyed
substantial gains: the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, grew by about
65% during Lula's presidency. This is more than three times the increase
during the prior eight years (that is, the presidency of Fernando Henrique
Cardoso, of Serra's party). This affects not only minimum-wage workers, but
tens of millions of others whose income is tied to the minimum wage.
In addition, the government has expanded the Bolsa Familia programme, which
provides small cash grants to poor families on condition of school
attendance and health immunisation compliance. The programme has been
successful in reducing illiteracy, and now reaches about 13m families. More
than 19 million people have been shifted across the poverty line since 2003.
And a new scheme of subsidies for home ownership has benefitted hundreds of
thousands of families, with millions likely to take part, as it expands.
Although the brand of Republican campaign strategy borrowed by Serra was
effective for most of the last four decades in the United States, it hasn't
performed all that well as an export. The Brazilian electorate tired quickly
of the mudslinging; and swing voters wanted to know what Serra would do for
them that would be better than what the Workers' party had done. When he
couldn't tell them, he lost their votes.
On the down side, the negative campaigning prevented the election campaign
generally from addressing some of the vital issues of Brazil's future.
Brazil's financial elite, which dominates the central bank, has an influence
on economic policy that is at least as bad - and as powerful - as that of
Wall Street in the United States. This is one reason why Brazil, even under
Lula, has had, for many years, the highest or near-highest real interest
rates in the world. Brazil's growth performance has still not been on a par
with the other "Bric" countries (Russia, India, China), and the country will
have to move away from some of the neoliberal policies of previous
governments in order to achieve its potential.
Capital formation during the Lula years was not much different from during
the Cardoso years, and was relatively low compared to many developing
countries. Public investment was even lower, although it has recently begun
to accelerate. The country will need a development strategy, and one that
establishes new patterns of investment and consumption to advance the
interests of the majority of Brazilians - some 50 million of whom remain in
poverty.
The election has enormous implications for the western hemisphere, where the
Obama State Department has continued, with barely a stutter, the Bush
administration's strategy of "rollback" against the unprecedented
independence that the left governments of South America have won over the
last decade. A defeat of the Workers' party would have been a big victory
for the DC foreign policy establishment.
It also has implications for the rest of the world. In May, Brazil and
Turkey broke new ground in the world of international diplomacy, by
negotiating a nuclear fuel swap arrangement for Iran, in an attempt to
resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme. The State Department was
probably more upset about this than anything that Brazil had done in the
region, including Lula's strong and consistent support for the government of
President Hugo Chavéz in Venezuela. Serra, for his part, had attacked the
Iran deal during his campaign.
Outside of Washington, then, Dilma Rousseff's win in this election,
consolidating President Lula's achievements, will be greeted as good news.
No comments:
Post a Comment