The Resilient Senhor Lula
Allegations of kickbacks, a false dossier and reports of phone-tapping -- such is the scandal that has entered the fray during the final stretch of Brazil's presidential election.
But the reports may not make much difference for incumbent president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is favored to win reelection in this weekend's general election. Polls show that a corruption scandal implicating some of his closest aides is having little negative impact on his standing in the polls.
Lula attracted positive media coverage when he first won office in 2002 for his rise from metalworker to chief of state and his moderate brand of leftism. But coverage, which has grown more critical over the years, has turned especially sour since the arrest of two operatives in his Worker's Party (PT) on Sept. 15. The men were charged with seeking to purchase a dossier of fabricated information designed to incriminate the opposition Social Democratic Party in a corruption scam.
Marco Aurelio Mello, head of the country's electoral court, said the scandal is "much worse" than America's Watergate scandal "given the context, the accumulation of reports of scandals that we have had over the past few years."
One of Lula's aides rejected the comparison, according to O Estado de Sao Paulo (in Portuguese), a leading national daily. But a headline in the newspaper did echo the infamous Watergate scandal: "Crisis Advances On All The President's Men."
(Earlier this month, officials said they discovered that the telephones of three electoral court magistrates, including Mello, had been bugged, according to a Deutsche Presse Agentur report. But the court's director general told reporters there was "not even one lead" as to who planted the bugs, according to the Spanish news agency EFE.)
Lula's defense: He didn't know anything about the "nutty gang" hired by his campaign manager, whom he immediately fired.
"Many Brazilians are starting to wonder if there was anything ethical or revolutionary about Lula's first term in office," said The Guardian. "Allegations of corruption, bribes, tax evasion, intimidation and blackmail have blighted the Workers' Party (PT) for much of Lula's presidency, costing him his chief of staff, finance minister and, last week, his campaign manager."
"Lula's reelection next Sunday would indeed be academic" if it were not for the "dossier crisis," as the scandal is known, said Folha de S.Paulo, another leading newspaper. Now "the ground on which the PT campaign is walking is shaking -- and it will not stop quaking in the next six days."
One recent poll shows Lula's support has declined slightly to 49 percent of voters, compared to support for his chief rival, Geraldo Alckmin, which has risen to 31 percent.
Lula's Popularity
If the press seems to be raking Lula over the coals for his alleged ties to corrupt characters, why do the polls not reflect a greater shift in public opinion?
Many voters evidently do not blame the president for his party's alleged ethical lapses. Seventy-five percent of people interviewed in a Datafolha opinion poll agreed that corruption is rampant in Brazil's government and 83 percent said that the president has some responsibility, according to Mercopress, an English-language news site covering South America.
But Lula retains the allegiance of many poor people, thanks to his common touch and his Bolsa Familia (family grant) program. The program provides poor families with cash benefits provided they keep their children in school and follow a prescribed course of vaccinations, according to the BBC.
"It's reaching 11 million families or 44 million people - that's 20% of the population of Brazil," said Tiago Cavalcanti, a Brazilian economist. "So it's huge, and it's going to be very difficult to beat Lula in this election."
But another BBC report found that the poorest of the poor -- landless peasants -- feel disappointed by Lula over land issues.
"I remember Lula saying that if he could deliver one thing as president it would be land reform," one activist said. "But four years on, land reform is still on the drawing board. He's done nothing."
Latin America Looks On
The Toronto Globe & Mail describes Lula as "the good leftist," comparing him favorably to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales.
"He didn't come in on a vengeful agenda, as happened with leaders in Bolivia and Venezuela," said U.S. academic Eduardo Gamarra. "Populists often come to power at very crucial moments and they represent a tremendous opportunity to redress social grievances. They also come in with a leftist agenda and are facing the biggest challenges to make the left credible."
Ecuadoran columnist Gonzalo Ruiz Alvares sees Latin America trying to find a path between "the great empire [of the United States] led by the non-reflective G. Walker Bush and the histrionic, intolerant bossism of Chavez."
"It is therefore important that we build a new axis in which chiefs of state like Lula -- who may well be tired of having Chavez steal the show -- cautious, like the moderate Socialist [Michelle] Bachelet [in Chile] or the Social Democrat Allan Garcia [in Peru], who was the victim of Chavez's attacks, will decide to adopt a sensible, equidistant posture that will contemplate good relations with the United States and, by the way, the countries of the 'chapista' axis [Venezuela and Bolivia], who do not march to the drum beat set by others," he wrote in El Comercio (in Spanish).
Clovis Rossi, a columnist for Folha de S.Paulo, says the election has not ignited strong passions because Lula's platform differs little from Alckmin's.
"Except for barely practical political rhetoric from leaders like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia, there is nothing new in the world's electoral marketplace that differs very much from what is usually called neo-liberalism or the Washington Consensus. In other words, there is no longer a battle between different projects in any modern country, no left-right confrontation (with their nuances) that might raise voters' emotions. Here, Brazil is no different than the United Kingdom, Spain or Uruguay." (Published in English by the Jordan Times).
Rossi says Lula is ahead in the polls because "he works on both sides of the counter."
Between 2003 and 2006, Lula's administration spent $242.7 billion to repay the holders of government bonds while allocating $13.8 billion to the Bolsa Familia program.
"This does not seem to be the best way to bring about a true redistribution of income, but has been enough to achieve two objectives: it keeps domestic and foreign investors satisfied. ... This strategy also wins the votes of the poorest segments of society, who make up the majority of Brazil's electorate and receive very little, but see the subsidies as 'better than nothing.'"
By Jefferson Morley |
September 27, 2006; 10:48 AM ET
| Category:
Americas
Previous: Afghanistan: What's Gone Wrong? |
Next: Berlin Opera Flap Brings Cries of Self-Censorship
Posted by: Julio Fernandes | September 27, 2006 12:39 PM
FYI,
In Portuguese we would write: Senhor - without the ñ, which does not belong to the Portuguese alphabet. It indeed sounds and means the same as the word in Spanish " Señor", but the orthography is different.
Nice attempt though. On that note, the following words could have been granted their accents:
São Paulo,
Inácio as in: Luiz Inácio da Silva
Marco Aurélio de Mello ( TSE's President)
Posted by: Reader | September 27, 2006 12:56 PM
You beat me in mentioning how to spell "senhor" correctly, Reader. To be fair, however, the Portuguese alphabet is more complicated than the Spanish one.
Despite all the corruption, poverty, and violence in Brazil, to still have Lula as the clear favorite demonstrates the extremely low quality of the "political class" in that country.
Posted by: Matedecoca | September 27, 2006 01:24 PM
Apparently Luna poses no threat to Neo Liberalism, as Brazil's Industries are joining American industries in fleeing to China with their jobs. Apparently, wages in Brazil are not "competetive" with the $1000.00 a year wages of Chinese Workers. There is little difference Between the so called left and the right on economic issues in recent years. Labels like Social Democrats, Labor parties, or the American Democratic Party have no meaning as they have joined Conservative parties in advocating "Free Trade". Historically, Progressive parties have sought to protect the Industries and workers in their countries from the wage slavery rampant in underdeveloped countries. Alexander Hamilton and Washington would be totally disgusted with American political parties as they sought to make the United States independent of foreign economic control. They were nationalists, and made America an economic power house through protectionism.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | September 27, 2006 01:49 PM
Unfortunately we are suffering of and "extremely low quality of the "political class" , as you pointed out, not only in " that country"- BraSil, but all over the world, however that is a whole theme for another complicated conversation.
I believe that other rest of the Brazilian citizens and I, who are not voting for Lula Sunday, are with this imminent Lula victory without a run-off stuck in our throats. Not all the space available for comments in the Washington Post page would probably be enough to vent my frustration. That is probably one of the reasons I just decided to point out the Portuguese character and not get deep!(which I thought would get to the author, I had no intention to be posted).
The article is good overall compressive explanation to its 'gringo' audience of what is happening in Brazil. It mentions the reason why Lula is going to win, but fails to mention the enormous frustration of the other 51% of the voters who won't vote for him.
But since you 'stuck the finger in the wound', the truth of the matter is that a lot of people who voted for Lula on the past election, or as I matter of fact did not vote for him, but trusted him and 'gave him a chance', are very disappointed and will not vote for him [again.] And I am talking about intellectuals, activists; people concerned and dedicated to social issues, not right wing liberals.
The article indeed points out that Lula will win because of the massive vote of the families who receive the 'Bolsa Familia." A program that has its credits but it should become more than a populist platform to win re-election in the midst of so much corruption. To bridge the inequality gab of Brazil, one of the largest in the world, after people has 'eaten the fish', they need to 'learn how to fish'. And Lula is not working towards policies to empower the poor to do so.
I agree with Julio Fernandes that the most positive outcome of all this corruption scandals is that they are coming out in the public, they have been some how investigated, but unfortunately all the corruption scandals are "ending in Pizza" - meaning total impunity. One of the reasons impunity reigns it is because the representatives and politicians involved on the two major corruption scandals unveiled last year are not going to be prosecuted and were 'pardoned' by their peers in Congress.
I hope that in the coming years, we see both the corruption scandals coming out in public, but that the people implicated in them are prosecuted and pay for their crimes. Lula denials of knowing about any of the corruption scandals brewed under his nose, and his lack of effort to address the problem has alienated the middle class and the educated voters who trusted him 4 years ago.
Posted by: Reader | September 27, 2006 02:35 PM
Just so no one feels slighted, Israel is also suffering under neo liberalism. Part of the reason for the fiasco in South Lebanon was because the government cut back on training for the IDF to "save money". One third of the Holacaust survivors live in poverty because of cuts in the social safety net. In deed, as in America and the rest of the world, the social safety net in Israel continues to be reduced. The Israeli Newpaper Haaretz, available on line, has had some excellent articles on the subject. I have forgotten the name of the reporter who covers that beat, but she does some excellent work.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | September 27, 2006 02:57 PM
Comparing what is being said of Lula by his political opponents now, to what was said before he got elected, you must conclude he has not done badly. You might conclude the same if you compare his current image to what is said about his opponents.
Posted by: Silvio | September 27, 2006 02:57 PM
Lula tanked when it was explained to him how Raytheon got the Echelon-cranked Amazon surveillance contract.
Posted by: Reynolds | September 28, 2006 08:50 AM
Interesting to see how resilient Lula's support is in the face of the establishment media's campaign to oust him. The reason: Lula has successfully tackled what is by far Brazil's biggest problem -- the country's highly unjust income and wealth distribution. Lula has made the very poor a lot better off in a very short time, and for that alone he deserves re-election. Keep in mind that Brazil is a rich country with a grindingly poor underclass, and that it has the most unequal income and wealth distribution of any country in the world. Keep in mind too that this unjust wealth distribution is at the root of many of Brazil's other major problems -- including urban crime and the economic stagnation witnessed under previous administrations.
Despite the establishment media hype - egged on by The NY Times' Larry Rohter, who appears to hold a personal grudge against the Brazilian president - the current round of scandals are actually quite minor compared with those of the past. Keep in mind that most of the skullduggery was essentially aimed at cobbling together a coalition in Congress so Lula's party could push through its pro-poor legislative agenda, hardly the stuff of past rightwing administrations whose members used their positions to personally enrich themselves to the tune of millions, and sometimes even billions, of dollars. Lula's has been an excellent administration that others in Latin America, and indeed North America, would do well to emulate. He has used government to help those who need it most. That might not be what Larry Rohter, the Estado de Sao Paulo and Veja magazine want for Brazil. But it is what the vast majority of the Brazilian people need and want, and that is why he will be re-elected with a commanding majority.
Posted by: Antonio | October 1, 2006 03:56 PM
Lula has surged back into a commanding lead, thanks in part to his charge that his opponent, Alckmin, would be a toady to the U.S. Antipathy to Bush is such in Brazil, as virtually everywhere else in the world, that this helped power Lula back into the lead.
Posted by: Joao da Silva | October 11, 2006 04:38 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
As a Brazilian-born living in Montreal for more than 10 years, the major difference I see in all present corruption scandals and the past ones is that people are actually being caught and brought to justice. Nothing of this magnitude would happen 5 years ago.
Paradoxically, people see corruption scandals every day and think things are worse off now than they were before. The very fact that Policia Federal (brazilian version of the FBI) is running unbiased investigations and incriminating people from all political parties is a huge step forward in brazilian society. Let's just hope the next step is exemplary action from the Judicial Branch to bring real change to the society.