In all the years I’ve been reporting from Brazil there is one subject I regularly tried to avoid writing about.
That subject is politics and the reason is simple: Who gets elected president in Brazil doesn’t matter that much and for that reason Brazilian politics is rarely interesting to outsiders.
Brazil is the world’s seventh biggest economy but it is relatively unimportant when it comes to geo-political matters. No one in Beijing or Washington or Berlin believes their world will change – much less THE world – if Aecio beats Dilma or vice versa. Brazil is more important than outsiders think, but less important that Brazilians want to believe.
There are a lot more journalists and wannabes in Brazil now than there were 12 years ago and that means there is a lot more coverage and a lot more bias.
In addition, elections can be interesting because of the personalities involved and this ballot provoked an unusual amount of interest because of Eduardo Campos’ tragic death, the rise and fall of Marina Silva, and the last-minute comeback by Aecio Neves.
But like most of the elections this century, it doesn’t really matter who wins because both candidates have remarkably similar policies. They both promise continuity, albeit with very different styles. (This BBC guide explains how little difference there really is between the two parties.)
The economy will keep stuttering along – faster if Aecio wins, slower if Dilma does – and inequality will continue to fall – faster if Dilma wins, slower if Aecio does. Public security is largely a state issue, and the big changes necessary in education have to come at state and municipal level. Neither candidate can hope to end endemic corruption and although foreign policy might change slightly who really cares?
The key issues facing Brazil – a modernisation of the justice, health and education systems, along with lower taxes, less corruption, a much-needed reduction in violence and a massive increase in infrastructure spending – are the same ones as one or even two generations ago.
Those changes are not going to happen under the current dysfunctional system in which 28 parties in Congress force laborious negotiations on every little issue.
What Brazil needs is a bold overhaul of its political system and more public participation.
And there’s nothing that a new president can do about that.
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 8, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Anderson Luis Amaral (@amaralanderson2)
I could swear you were talking about Scotland and its past referendum. Just by curiosity:Why uploading only Aecio pic?
October 8, 2014 at 4:48 pm
andrewdownie
Don’t see the parallels to Scotland, Anderson. Although Scotland already has functioning justice, health and education systems, etc, so who is elected doesn’t in this sense have as big a task as the Brazilian president.
I put a picture of Aecio because I put a big pic of Dilma in my last post and wanted to be fair to both candidates.
Thanks for commenting!
Andre
October 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm
Anderson Luis Amaral (@amaralanderson2)
OK,I am sorry for expressing myself badly. I’d say that different from U.K/Scotland, where I do not believe a “yes” instead of “No” in the last independence referendum would have the slightest political/economic change in both Scotland/U.K (opinion from a Brazilian living between Sao Paulo and Dublin Airport, who happens to have Brit friends and a Irish-polish wife, thus a bit aware of the situation) , in comparison to Brazil I do suggest things after this elections may get way too different depending on who will be elected. I remember pretty well in the 90’s with FHC-PSDB president how was to live in a middle-income country with an unemployment rate of 2 digits just as the annual inflation. My financial situation and thus of those around me improved a lot since PSDB left the power.
I’d have bet that the only acceptable political change in Brazil would be Marina president and Skaf as Sao Paulo governor, but now I am already expecting the worst scenario…
October 10, 2014 at 7:12 am
andrewdownie
But don’t you understand that the PSDB stabilised a crippled economy giving Lula the conditions to build on that and effect the vital changes between 2002-10?
October 10, 2014 at 9:11 pm
Anderson Luis Amaral (@amaralanderson2)
Well, I didn’t feel that ” stabilised economy” until 2006, close to Lula’s reelection. Up to that time you still could see well-qualified Brazilians going abroad to work in “low-paid” jobs. (I was unemployed at that time as well, ). So, I would say that the vital changes ocurred in Lula’s first term and the good effects on his second term. (Ok, Dilma has not been that great, but nothing can be worse than PSDB). As the Financial Times today expressed : Arminio Fraga disappoints (Arminio is Aecio Financial Minister -to-be).
Hint: if you check football salaries in Brazil during FHC-PSDB period and compare/cross them with the Lula’s 8 years term , you will see an interesting graph showing how the player salariess grew exponentially and with the latter and how that helped to hold at least few of good Brazilian player in Brazil, in comparison to FHC terms.
October 14, 2014 at 7:25 am
andrewdownie
“It you check football salaries in Brazil during FHC-PSDB period and compare/cross them with the Lula’s 8 years term , you will see an interesting graph showing how the player salaries grew exponentially and with the latter and how that helped to hold at least few of good Brazilian player in Brazil, in comparison to FHC terms.”
Well….Brazilian football clubs owe more than 5 billion reais. They’ve never been in so much debt. Ever.
October 12, 2014 at 8:13 pm
napier
How can the current dysfunctional system be modernized? What’s it going to take? Constitutional change? What would be the path to that?
October 14, 2014 at 7:24 am
andrewdownie
Political reform, to limit the number of political parties, or at least cut off funding to those without adequate representation. IMHO.
October 27, 2014 at 12:56 pm
lauren
“Brazil doesn’t matter that much and for that reason Brazilian politics is rarely interesting to outsiders.
Brazil is the world’s seventh biggest economy but it is relatively unimportant when it comes to geo-political matters. No one in Beijing or Washington or Berlin believes their world will change – much less THE world – if Aecio beats Dilma or vice versa. Brazil is more important than outsiders think, but less important that Brazilians want to believe.”
Oh so then Brazil is just like India, South Africa, Nigeria, Argentina, South Korea, Mexico….not to mention New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the overwhelming majority of the world’s countries. In other words, Brazil is pretty normal. Not sure what the criticism is here. So what? I should think that it’s a COMPLIMENT to Brazil that the world doesn’t worry too much about who gets elected as president because it means they’re not worry about political instability.
On the other hand, it certainly DOES matter to Washington or Berlin what political changes happen in lots of failed states, undemocratic countries, countries with ongoing domestic strife like Turkey….I suppose those countries are superior to Brazil because Berlin and Washington DO care about political changes going on there.
I love this notion that Brazil should be dismissed and sneered at because Washington, Berlin, Beijing don’t give a damn about who Brazilians elect as president. Just exactly how do Brazilians’ lives change when the US elects a new president, GOP or Democrat? How momentous is that change to Brazilians’ lives?
I agree of course with your ultimate conclusion. But this notion that Brazil doesn’t matter to anyone on the international stage is just nonsense. the BRIC countries DO in fact matter. Brazil’s election certainly matters to the international financial press, international investors and the US govt in its decided preference for a more pro-US govt. The idea that the US doesn’t give a damn about the largest economy in its “backyard”-about what political changes go on in the biggest country in its “backyard”-is pure fantasy.
October 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm
andrewdownie
You say you agree with my ultimate conclusion but also diss many of my arguments so I am confused. (Although to suggest that Brazil is as important as Japan – which does massive trade with the US and has one of the world’s biggest economies – or Mexico – which is a permanent issue because it’s on the US’s doorstep and there are millions of Mexicans in the US – is very wrong.)
But what I’d really like to comment on is that you think I am sneering. I’ve no idea how you arrive at that conclusion.
The point of this blog was not to say that Brazil doesn’t matter. It’s to say that it should matter more, but it won’t because it can’t or won’t attack the big issues facing it.
Thanks for taking the time to comment….
October 27, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Marcia Cunha
Reblogged this on Thos Whom Jupiter Wants To Destroy, He Drives Mad..