[Marxism] Elections in Brazil: What's at stake in the runoff

[Walter Lippmann <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(The author is a Cuban foreign policy analyst and regular participant
in the island's daily TV news magazine, called the Mesa Redonda.)
============================================

Elections in Brazil:
What's at stake in the runoff
By Eduardo Dimas
October 12, 2006

http://www.progresoweekly.com/friendly.php?pdr=Oct1218_06&progreso=Eduardo_Dimas

When everything -- polls included -- indicated that Luiz InÃcio Lula
da Silva was going to win the presidential election in Brazil in the
first round by a wide margin, the exact opposite happened. Although
Lula obtained 48.61 percent of the vote against 41.61 percent for his
closest opponent, social-democrat Gerardo Alckmin, a man with a known
neoliberal trajectory, his reelection is in danger if he cannot
surround himself with all of the nation's progressive forces against
the offensive of the Brazilian right wing, which is tightly linked to
the United States' plans to terminate the governments they call
populist in Latin America: Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil.

Some analysts blame this situation on the media campaigns
orchestrated by the major Brazilian media, which are manipulated by
the nation's economic-power groups. Another factor is the internal
divisions within the Workers Party (WP) that led to the expulsion of
several members in 2003, among them Senator Heloisa Helena, who
garnered 6.85 percent of the votes in this election, as the candidate
of the Socialism and Freedom Party. If that percentage had been added
to the votes Lula got, he would now be the president-reelect.

Others blame the "slip" to Lula's abandonment of many of the promises
he made during the 2002 electoral campaign, such as agrarian reform,
with the consequent loss of the support from the Movement of the
Landless and several labor unions. Or to the cases of corruption that
affected several of his principal collaborators, such as Josà Dirceu
and Antonio Palossi, to mention just two of the most notable. Or to
the last-minute scandal over the purchase by his campaign aides of
some documents that said some of his adversaries were involved in
state fraud.

All that is true and other factors could be added. But, like many
other observers, I believe that with Lula's reelection many other
issues of vital importance for Brazil and the rest of Latin America
are brought into play. It is necessary, then, for the leftist
organizations, including Helena's own party and the Movement of the
Landless, to join for a common cause, lest they lose their few gains.
At least, Lula promoted the Zero Hunger plan, which benefited 40
million Brazilians, created some sources of labor and limited the
privatization of natural resources and state enterprises.

Above all, Lula tried to keep up the process of Latin American
integration, as a member of Mercosur, and defended the interests of
Latin America and the rest of the underdeveloped world at the World
Trade Organization and other international forums. Lula was one of
the main promoters -- along with Hugo ChÃvez and NÃstor Kirchner --
of the strengthening of the Mercosur and the rejection of the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that is so dear to the desire for
domination harbored by the Bush administration.

It was the stance of Lula's government -- along with those of India
and South Africa (the Group of Three), the most powerful nations in
the so-called Group of 20 -- that kept the Doha Round from imposing
on the rest of the underdeveloped nations methods of trade that
benefit only the most developed countries.

That is why many observers indicate that, while on a domestic 
level Lula's policies did not remotely meet the expectations, on a
foreign-affairs level they went farther than expected, despite the
compliance of his debt to the International Monetary Fund and the
high rates of interest the banks imposed, to the detriment of the
Brazilian economy.

If Alckmin wins the elections set for Oct. 29, Brazil's policies are
likely to change radically, particularly as they affect the Mercosur
and relations with the rest of the Latin American nations and the
rest of the underdeveloped world.

Very probably, the process of privatization, of surrender of the
natural riches and state enterprises to the foreign transnationals
will continue, along the line of one of the principal leaders of
Alckmin's Social Democratic Party, former President Fernando 
Henrique Cardoso, who practically gave away many industries 
and mines to the big international consortiums.

As I write these lines, the two contenders and their parties are
trying to ally with the rest of the political organizations so as to
obtain a majority of the votes. Sectors of the Democratic Movement of
Brazil, which has split into numerous factions, have given their
support to one candidate or the other. The coalitions change
according to the interests and offers of the various political
forces.

The media, dominated by the Brazilian Ãlite, intensify their campaign
against Lula, while important figures in Brazil's intellectual
community, such as Frei Betto, Leonardo Boff and Emir Sader, campaign
for him. Lula himself and his principal collaborators have taken to
the streets to proselytize, an unequivocal sign that he knows he can
lose in the runoff.

In the first round, Lula and the WP lost eight representatives from
the main states: SÃo Paulo, Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro. He won
only in Bahia, the fourth-ranking state in terms of economic
importance. The parties that support Lula lost 26 representatives.
For its part, the opposition consolidated its majority in the Senate,
which makes Lula's task all the more difficult -- if he manages to
win reelection.

As theologian Leonardo Boff points out, Lula's four years were "a
wasted opportunity" in terms of domestic policy. The result is in
plain view.

If the Brazilian left does not understand what is at stake, the
process of integration in Latin America will take an important step
backward, because Brazil is the principal economic power in the
region. It remains to be seen what will be the final decision by
Helena and her party, which have declared themselves neutral; the
decision by former Health Minister Cristovam Buarque, who got 
2.67 percent of the votes; by the Movement of the Landless, the
independent labor unions, in sum, by all the progressive and
revolutionary forces of the country.

Unity is more necessary than ever, even for the very development of
those progressive and revolutionary forces.

In an article I wrote in July about the Mercosur summit, I pointed
out that one of the main obstacles to the process of Latin American
integration was the fate of the policies of unity and economic
insertion adopted by those who assumed power in each country after
the elections. Now we face the first test of what I told you then,
when "everything" seemed to indicate that Lula would win without any
difficulty.

Renowned Brazilian intellectual Emir Sader defined very clearly
what's at stake in the Brazilian runoff, as the subtitle to this
article states. And because I cannot explain it better than he did
(even if I plagiarized his words), I shall close this article with a
quote from him:

"What is primarily at stake in the runoff is Brazil's international
insertion, with the direct consequences such an act will have on the
fate of the country. With Lula, a policy will remain that gives
priority to regional integration and the south-south alliances that
oppose the FTAA and favor Mercosur. With Alckmin, priority will go to
the free-trade policies: the FTAA, a free-trade treaty with the
United States, the isolation of ALBA and the weakening of Mercosur,
the South American Community, the alliances with South Africa, India
and the Group of 20.

"What is at stake is whether the government will bet on the future
with free-trade policies or processes or regional integration. This
would mark a fundamental difference for the future of Brazil and
Latin America. To adopt free trade and open the country's economy to
the major international monopolies -- particularly from the United
States -- and to renounce any form of domestic regulation of the
environment, the currency, quota policies, etc., would condemn Brazil
to the predominance of market policies.

"This would mean perpetuating the inequalities that have made our
country the unfairest in the world."

As we see, there is a lot at stake. Any further comments are
unnecessary. On Oct. 29 we'll have the answer.




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism